Very informative piece on the state of India prior to and during British involvement.
All too often I see it treated as if British Raj was *obviously* evil and harmful to India. It’s taken almost without question and to state otherwise is borderline ridiculous.
Hopefully this piece can shed light on the situation and show it wasn’t that simple.
Im actually reading a book which covers a lot of this – Empire by Niall Ferguson. Very good read.
Typical revisionist history- selective interpretation. Good work of fiction. And yes Churchill was a racist bastard when it came to India. His achievement in leading fight against nazism is undeniable- before anyone jumps in with that argument.
I’d also suggest reading ‘Inglorious Empire’ as well.
For balance.
I don’t have the necessary historical knowledge to analyse the truthfulness of all the claims this article, but it seems as though they are drawn very selectively to argue for one specific point. It’s worth pointing out this this is a fringe view in larger academic circles; see this [open letter written](https://theconversation.com/ethics-and-empire-an-open-letter-from-oxford-scholars-89333) by a large group of academics about the work of the ‘Ethics of Empire’ project that this article represents.
>The “Ethics and Empire” project asks the wrong questions, using the wrong terms, and for the wrong purposes. However seriously intended, far from offering greater nuance and complexity, Biggar’s approach is too polemical and simplistic to be taken seriously. There is doubtless much to be said about the ethical regimes that have historically been used to justify or critique imperial rule (a story at least as old as Tacitus). But there is no sense in which neutral “historical data”, from any historical context, can simply be used to “measure” the ethical appropriateness of either critiques of or apologia for empire, let alone sustain an “ethic of empire” for today’s world.
>Neither we, nor Oxford’s students in modern history will be engaging with the “Ethics and Empire” programme, since it consists of closed, invitation-only seminars. Instead, we want students and the wider public to know that the ideas and aims of that project are not those of most scholars working on these subjects in Oxford, whether in the history faculty or elsewhere.
Attempts to represent the history of British colonialism India as a ‘modernizing influence that was good for India’ have existed at least as long as the British colonial presence in India itself. You can definitely use selective citations to argue that point. But I feel confident in saying that, if this article was a rigorous, good-faith look at the history of the British Raj, and not an ideology piece, it would be in an academic journal, and not on a blog complaining about ‘woke history’.
For the shareholders I’m sure it was had great benefits, but obviously the locals felt subject to the franchise.
Am I reading this right?
*Indeed per capita income had been declining since 1600, when the Mughal Empire arguably peaked under its most illustrious emperor Akbar. According to the Maddison Project, the major drop in India’s per capita GDP occurred between 1600 and 1750 and was stagnant thereafter till 1870.* ***In 1700, India’s per capita income was roughly half that of Britain’s at $729,*** *compared with $1,540 for England. It had fallen from $793 in 1600, showing a decline well before the break-up of the Mughal empire.* ***Per capita GDP fell further to $648 in 1800, just after the British took over, then went up to $673 in 1913, thanks to British India’s Raj-inspired industrial revolution, but dropped again to $619 in 1950*** *due to the world recession after WW1.*
A lot of this articles justification is that we improved productivity, modernized and developed the economy. But… That shows *throughout* British occupation it never once reached even the trough of the Mughal Empire they are trying to use as an example of India’s pre-occupation decline?
Also love they just casually add little snips like Europeans could not be held accountable by Indian judges until 1884 and Indians were not included in the legislative process until 1919 when selected aristocrats could be granted a position.
If that was a russian website we would just call it propaganda. And its authors would be dismissed as paid shills.
Its whole basis is the myth that “woke” counter culture is dictating research, but I fail to see how anyone like the author should receive academic funding when their research is so very clearly driven by having the preferred outcome (empire good) and working backwards.
8 comments
Very informative piece on the state of India prior to and during British involvement.
All too often I see it treated as if British Raj was *obviously* evil and harmful to India. It’s taken almost without question and to state otherwise is borderline ridiculous.
Hopefully this piece can shed light on the situation and show it wasn’t that simple.
Im actually reading a book which covers a lot of this – Empire by Niall Ferguson. Very good read.
Typical revisionist history- selective interpretation. Good work of fiction. And yes Churchill was a racist bastard when it came to India. His achievement in leading fight against nazism is undeniable- before anyone jumps in with that argument.
I’d also suggest reading ‘Inglorious Empire’ as well.
For balance.
I don’t have the necessary historical knowledge to analyse the truthfulness of all the claims this article, but it seems as though they are drawn very selectively to argue for one specific point. It’s worth pointing out this this is a fringe view in larger academic circles; see this [open letter written](https://theconversation.com/ethics-and-empire-an-open-letter-from-oxford-scholars-89333) by a large group of academics about the work of the ‘Ethics of Empire’ project that this article represents.
>The “Ethics and Empire” project asks the wrong questions, using the wrong terms, and for the wrong purposes. However seriously intended, far from offering greater nuance and complexity, Biggar’s approach is too polemical and simplistic to be taken seriously. There is doubtless much to be said about the ethical regimes that have historically been used to justify or critique imperial rule (a story at least as old as Tacitus). But there is no sense in which neutral “historical data”, from any historical context, can simply be used to “measure” the ethical appropriateness of either critiques of or apologia for empire, let alone sustain an “ethic of empire” for today’s world.
>Neither we, nor Oxford’s students in modern history will be engaging with the “Ethics and Empire” programme, since it consists of closed, invitation-only seminars. Instead, we want students and the wider public to know that the ideas and aims of that project are not those of most scholars working on these subjects in Oxford, whether in the history faculty or elsewhere.
Attempts to represent the history of British colonialism India as a ‘modernizing influence that was good for India’ have existed at least as long as the British colonial presence in India itself. You can definitely use selective citations to argue that point. But I feel confident in saying that, if this article was a rigorous, good-faith look at the history of the British Raj, and not an ideology piece, it would be in an academic journal, and not on a blog complaining about ‘woke history’.
For the shareholders I’m sure it was had great benefits, but obviously the locals felt subject to the franchise.
Am I reading this right?
*Indeed per capita income had been declining since 1600, when the Mughal Empire arguably peaked under its most illustrious emperor Akbar. According to the Maddison Project, the major drop in India’s per capita GDP occurred between 1600 and 1750 and was stagnant thereafter till 1870.* ***In 1700, India’s per capita income was roughly half that of Britain’s at $729,*** *compared with $1,540 for England. It had fallen from $793 in 1600, showing a decline well before the break-up of the Mughal empire.* ***Per capita GDP fell further to $648 in 1800, just after the British took over, then went up to $673 in 1913, thanks to British India’s Raj-inspired industrial revolution, but dropped again to $619 in 1950*** *due to the world recession after WW1.*
A lot of this articles justification is that we improved productivity, modernized and developed the economy. But… That shows *throughout* British occupation it never once reached even the trough of the Mughal Empire they are trying to use as an example of India’s pre-occupation decline?
Also love they just casually add little snips like Europeans could not be held accountable by Indian judges until 1884 and Indians were not included in the legislative process until 1919 when selected aristocrats could be granted a position.
If that was a russian website we would just call it propaganda. And its authors would be dismissed as paid shills.
Its whole basis is the myth that “woke” counter culture is dictating research, but I fail to see how anyone like the author should receive academic funding when their research is so very clearly driven by having the preferred outcome (empire good) and working backwards.