Modern history 1

IMPERIALISM AND COLONIALISM

1.1 Meaning and origin in the European context.

IMPERIALISM AND COLONIALISM: MEANING

Imperialism means the extension of power or rule by a country over the social, economic and political life of areas outside its borders. This may be done by establishing colonies by conquest or other means, and making them dependent via direct (eg India) or indirect (eg. China) methods.

While imperialism is the system which prevails in the metropole, colonialism is the system of domination which prevails in the colonies. It may be thus defined as the system by which the colony is exploited in different stages for the benefit of the capitalist class of the metropolis.

In other words, the same system of capitalism, which produces development in the metropolis, creates under development in the colony, and the colony gets linked with the world capitalist system, but in a subservient way. Therefore, the two can be said to be the two sides of the same coin. From the metropolis side, it is imperialism from the colony’s side, it is colonialism.

The phenomenon of imperialism and colonialism need to be also classified into formal and informal forms, or colonialism and semi-colonialism:

(a)    Formal – Involves annexation of territory and thus direct political rule. Eg India.

(b)   Informal – involves indirect rule by local elites who are independent legally but dependent politically. In the case of a semi colony like China control was over the economy rather than over the polity. Also, no one imperial power had a monopoly of control as it was exploited by many powers unlike the case of India, where it was mainly Britain which retained absolute political control.

EXPLORING THE CAUSES – ‘HOW’. ‘WHEN’ AND WHY DID THIS PHENOMENON ORIGINATE

HOW: Between 1500-1800, western Europe acquired 80%of the world’s land surface. This happened in two overlapping phases:

(a)    The 15^th and 16^th centuries saw the conquest of new territories for settlement. Eg. America, Siberia, Africa, Australasia. The European countries involved in this conquest were Portugal, Spain, France, Britain, Holland. The trigger was the beginning of the modern state and bureaucracy in politics in Europe, the scientific revolution in knowledge and rise of commercial capitalism in economy (Recall the renaissance and the enlightenment movement in Europe). These were to form the basis of the next phase. The consequences of this phase were a virtual sweep out of the entire populations of America and Siberia, forced transplantation of millions of African slaves to America and accumulation of capital in western Europe which was to give rise to Industrial capitalism, which formed the basis of the next phase.

(b)   The period between late 18^th century to early twentieth century saw another phase of conquest (This wave came to be known as new imperialism). The European countries involved in this conquest were France, Britain, Dutch, USA, and Germany. It was based on:

-          Industrial capitalism, which had the capacity for infinite expansion. ( As the Industrial revolution had occurred in Britain by this time.)

-          Rise of the modern bureaucratic state and democracy as the most effective form of rule

-          Knowledge as a form of conquest, dividing the world into west and the oriental east

WHEN: The following table will help understand how these phases were linked to transformation of feudal Europe into a capitalist Europe:

TIME PERIOD	RELATIONSHIP WITH GROWTH OF CAPITALISM	NATIONS INVOLVED IN CONQUEST	RELATIONSHIP WITH MODERN INDIA
1480s to 1650	Rise of commercial capitalism and rapid growth of world commerce.	Portugal and Spain	Mughal rule
1650 to 1780s	Commercial capitalism ripens into a rapid economic force. As a result we witness mercantile wars between different European countries.	Britain, France and Dutch.	Tussel between the three East India companies. (Eg- The 3 Anglo French wars), The Plassey plunder
1780s to 1870s	Rise of Industrial capitalism (with Industrial revolution in Britain)	Britain, France and Dutch	Post Charter Act 1813
1880 to WW1(1914)	Rise of monopoly capital, division of globe etc (As Industrialisation spreads to different European countries, a new wave of conquest called new Imperialism is witnessed.	Britain, France, Germany, USA	Construction of Railways, post, telegraph
Post WW1 (1918 onwards)	Socialism, Decolonisation, Rise of MNCs

1.2 Structure and stages of colonialism and their linkage with Drain of wealth theory

There were three distinct stages of colonialism. The forms of subordination in the colonies changed over time, as did colonial policy, state and its institutions, culture, ideas and ideologies. However, this did not mean that stages existed in a pure form. The older forms of subordination continued into the later stages.

1.      First Stage: Monopoly Trade and Plunder The first stage had two basic objectives.

-          In order to make trade more profitable indigenously manufactured goods were to be bought cheap. For this competitors were to be kept out, whether local (which was done by territorial conquest) or European (rival European companies were defeated in wars, eg Anglo- French wars). Thus the characteristic of the first stage was monopoly of trade.

-          Secondly, the political conquest of the colony enabled plunder and seizure of surplus. For example, the drain of wealth from India to Britain during the first stage was considerable. It amounted to two to three per cent of the national income of Britain at that time. 

This is described as the Period of Monopoly Trade and Direct Appropriation .

 To understand, let us take the Indian example and study the Period of East India Company's Domination, 1757-1813. During the last half of the 18th century, India was conquered by a monopoly trading corporation - the East India Company. The Company had two basic objectives at this stage.

i) The first was to acquire a monopoly of trade with India, and keep competitors out. This meant that other English or European merchants or trading companies should not compete with it in purchase and sale of lndian products. Nor should the Indian merchants do so. This would enable the East India Company to buy lndian products as cheaply as possible (due to monopoly) and sell them in World markets at as high a price as possible. Thus Indian economic surplus was to be appropriated through monopoly trade. Lets understand how this was done:

- The English competitors were kept out by persuading the British Government to grant the East India Company through a Royal Charter a monopolies of the right to trade with India and the East. Against the European rivals the Company had to wage long and fierce wars on land and the sea.

-  To acquire monopoly against Indian traders and to prevent lndian rulers from interfering with its trade, the Company took advantage of the disintegration of the Mughal Empire to acquire increasing political domination and corltrol over different parts of the country. (you must have read how Bengal, awadh, mysore etc were annexed)

 After political conquest, Indian weavers were also employed directly by the Company. In that case, they were forced to produce cloth at below market prices.

ii) The second major objective of colonialism at this stage was to directly appropriate or take over governmental revenues through control over state power. Why ? The East India Company required large financial resources :

- to wage wars in lndia and on the seas against European rivals and lndian rulers

-  to maintain naval forces, forts and armies around their trading posts, etc. .

- Financial resources had to be raised in India for another reason. lndian money was needed to purchase Indian goods. This could be acquired either by:

(a) sale of British goods in India. (Money could not be earned by selling British goods in India because at that time, the British produced hardly any goods which could be sold in lndia in competition with Indian products. British industrial products could not compete with lndian handicraft products till the beginning of the 19th century.) Or

(b) by export of gold and silver to India. (British Government, heavily influenced by merchantalist theories, was also unhappy with the export of gold and silver from Britain)

- Appropriation of government revenue would also, of course, increase the profits of the East India Company and dividents of its shareholders.

But the company did not possess such resources and the British Government too wasn't ready to provide them in that era of mercantilism. The much needed financial resources had, therefore, to be raised in India from the Indian people. This provided another incentive to make tenitorial conquests in India

Both the objectives -the monopoly of trade and appropriation of government revenues - were rapidly fulfilled with the conquest first of Bengal and parts of South India and then over the years to the rest of India.

(a)   Relationship with economic policy:

-          De-industrialisation: After Plassey and Buxar, the East India Company used its political power to acquire monopolistic control over Indian trade and handicraft products. Indian traders were gradually replaced and ruined, while the weavers and other craftsmen were compelled either to sell their products at uneconomic rates or to work for the Company at low wages.

It is important to note that at this stage there was no large scale import of British manufactures into India; rather the reverse occurred, that is, there was increase in export of Indian textiles, etc. The weavers were, for example, not ruined at this stage by British imports but because of the Company's monopoly and their exploitation by being forced to produce for the Company under uneconomic conditions.

-          Drain of wealth: With political conquest, the East India Company acquired direct control over the revenues of the Indian states. Moreover, both Company and its servants extorted illegally immense wealth from Indian merchants, officials, nobles, rulers and zamindars. In fact, this element of plunder and direct seizure of surplus was very strong in the first stage of colonialism. Gradually, large number of highly paid British officials were appointed in India and their salaries and pensions became a form of surplus appropriation. There was intense struggle within Britain for British appointments in India.

(b)   Relationship with colonial polity and administration: An  important feature of colonialism during this period was that no basic changes were introduced in the colony in administration, judicial system, transport and comhunication, methods of agricultural or industrial production, forms of business management or economic organisation (except for the Permanent Settlement in Bengal which really belonged to the second stage of colonialism).

(c)    Relationship with socio- cultural policy: Nor were any changes made in education or intellectual field, culture or social organisation. Only two new educational institutions were started -one at Banaras for Sanskritic learning and other at Calcutta for Persian and Arabic learning. Even the Christian Missionaries and British capitalists, who might have acted as a channel for the import of modern Western ideas, were kept out of British possessions in India.

The only changes made were: i) in military organisation and technology which contemporary independent Indian rulers were also introducing in their armed forces, and ii) in administration at the top of the structure of revenue collection so that it could be made more efficient and diverted to the Company.

Why was this so? Why were so few changes introduced? Because the two basic objectives of colonialism at this stage did not require basic socio-economic- administrative changes in India. Colonialism of the first stage could be superimposed over its existing economic, cultural, social and political structure. Also the British rulers did not feel the need to penetrate the villages deeper than their indigenous Indian predecessors had done so long as land revenue was successfully sucked out through the traditional machinery of revenue collection. There was therefore no need to disturb India's existing economic or political structure, or administrative and social organisation, or cultural and ideological framework.

(d)   Relationship with ideology of rulers: This lack of change was also reflected in the ideology of the rulers. No need was felt to criticise traditional Indian civilisation, religions, laws, caste system, family structure, etc. for they were not seen as obstacles at that stage of colonial exploitation. The need was to understand them sympathetically so that political control and economic exploitation could proceed smoothly without arousing opposition from Indians on religious, social or cultural grounds.

This period witnessed large scale drain of wealth from India. This wealth played an important role in financing Britain's industrial revolution. Drain of Wealth from India constituted 2 to 3 per cent of Britain's national income at the time.

2.      Second Stage: Era of Free Trade

The interest of the newly developed industrialists (after the Industrial revolution) of the metropolis in the colony was in the markets available for manufactured goods. For this:

-  it was necessary to increase exports from the colony to pay for purchase of manufactured imports.

- The metropolitan industrialists also wanted to develop the colony as a producer of raw materials to lessen dependence on non-empire sources.

-  Increase of exports from the colony would also enable it to pay for the high salaries and profits of merchants.

The industrialists opposed plunder as a form of appropriation of surplus on the ground that "it would destroy the goose that laid the golden eggs". Trade was the mechanism by which the surplus was to be appropriated in this stage. 

Since this was a period of exploitation through trade, it is also termed as Colonialism of Free Trade.

Let’s understand this stage with the Indian example.

Immediately after the East India company became the ruler over most parts of India, an intense struggle broke out in Britain to determine whose interests would the newly acquired colony serve. Britain was after 1750 undergoing the Industrial Revolution. The newly developing industrial capitalists began to attack the East India Company and the forms of its exploitation of India. They demanded that colonial administration and policy in India should now serve their interests. But their interests were very different from those of the East India Company. They did not gain much from a monopoly trade in Indian products or from the Company's control over Indian revenues. So what did these newly developing class of industrialist capitalists want?

-          They wanted India to serve as a market for their ever-increasing output of manufactured goods, especially textiles.

-          They also needed from India exports of raw materials, especially cotton, and foodgrains.

-          Moreover, India could buy more British goods only if it earned foreign exchange by increasing its exports.

-          Increasing exports were also needed to enable dividents of the East India Company and profits of British merchants and earnings and pensions of British officials to be transferred to Britain.

So what was India to import and what was India to export?

-          exports from India could consist only of agricultural raw materials and other non- manufactured goods, which would not give competition to British industrialists, but would rather aid their industrial and food needs.

-          Imports would be of Britain made industrially manufactured goods.

In other words, to suit the convenience of British industrial capitalists, British colonialism in India needed to enter its second stage. India needed to become a subordinate trading partner of Britain, as a market to be exploited and as a dependent colony to produce and supply the raw materials and food-stuffs Britain needed.

India's economic surplus was to be thus appropriated through trade based on unequal exchange. As a result, Britain increasingly produced and exported goods which were produced in factories using advanced technology and less labour, and in which level of productivity and wages was high. On the other hand, India produced agricultural raw materials through backward methods of production using great deal of labour leading to low productivity and low wages. This international division of labour was, moreover, not only highly unfavourable to India but was unnatural and artificial and was introduced and maintained forcibly through colonial domination.

In India this stage can be seen the 1813 Charter Act, by which the Company lost most of its political and economic power in India; the real power being wielded by the British Government which ruled India in the interests of the British capitalist class as a whole.

Now India could not be exploited in the new way within its existing economic, political, administrative and socio-cultural setting. This setting, therefore, had to be shattered and transformed all along the line. The British Indian Government set out to do so after 1813.

(a)    Relationship with colonial economic policy (drain of wealth) : In the economic field this meant:

-          (TRADE) integrating India's colonial economy with the British and world capitalist economy. The chief instrument of this was the introduction of free trade. All import duties in India were either totally removed or drastically reduced to nominal rates. Thus India was thrown open to British manufactures. Free entry was also now given to British capitalists to develop tea, coffee and indigo plantations, trade, transport, mining and modern industries in India. The British Indian Government gave active state help to these capitalists.

-          (AGRICULTURE) The agrarian structure of India was sought to be transformed in a capitalist direction through the Permanent Settlement and the Ryotwari systems.

-          (TRANSPORT AND COMMUNICATION) The large-scale imports and their sale in land and even more the large-scale export of the bulky raw materials and their gathering at the ports from long distances inside the country required a cheap and easy system of transport and communications. Without such a system India could not be opened to large-scale foreign trade. The Government, therefore, improved rivers and canals, encouraged the introduction of steamships on the rivers and improved the roads. Above all, during latter half of the 19th century, it encouraged and financed a large network of railways linking India's major cities and markets to its ports. By 1905 nearly 45,000 kms. of railways had been built. Similarly, a modern postal and telegraph system was introduced to facilitate economic transactions.

(b) Relationship with colonial administrative policy: Many changes were now brought about in the administrative field.

-          Administration was made more elaborate and comprehensive and it reached down to the villages and- out-lying areas of the country so that British goods could reach, and agricultural products drawn from, its interior villages and remotest parts.

-          Legal and judicial structure of India was overhauled to promote capitalist commercial relations and maintain law and order. The changes, however, related to criminal law, law of contract and legal procedures. Personal law, including that relating to marriage and inheritance, was largely left untouched since it did not in any way affect colonial transformation of the economy.

-          Further more it was in the 1830s and 1840s, that English replaced Persian as the official language in India. Lord William Bentinck's resolution dated March 7, 1835 stated that 'the funds appropriated to education would be best employed in English education alone'.

(c)    Relationship with socio- cultural policy: Modern education was now introduced basically with the objective to man the new, vastly expanded administration. But it was also expected to help transform India's society and culture. This transformation was needed for two reasons; it was expected to, i) create an overall climate of change and development and, ii) generate a culture of loyalty to the rulers. It is to be noted that it was around this period that many Indian intellectuals like Raja Ram Mohan Roy began to work for social and cultural modernisation for different reasons, mainly as part of national regeneration.

(d)   Relationship with the ideology of the rulers: The second stage of colonialism generated a liberal imperialist ideology among many British statesmen and administrators. They talked of training the Indian people in the arts of democracy and self Government. Britain was at this time, the workshop of the world -it was the only rapidly industrialising country. Consequently, many in Britain believed that the pattern of trade with India (explained above) could be maintained so long as law and order, free trade and sanctity of business contract were maintained there. For this, India's socio-economic structure was to be radically transformed. This meant that its existing culture and social organisation had to be declared unsuitable and decadent. Indian culture and society were now subjected to sharp criticism. No racialism was, however involved in this criticism for it was simultaneously maintained that Indians could gradually be raised to the level of Europeans.

India played a crucial role in the development of British capitalism during this stage. British industries, especially textiles, were heavily dependent on exports. Moreover, Indian army played an important role in extending British colonialism in Asia and Africa. Throughout this stage Indian wealth and capital continued to be drained to Britain.

3.      Third Stage: Era of Finance Capital

This is described as the Era of Foreign Investments and International Competition for Colonies. A new stage of colonialism was ushered in India from about 1860s, and was for raw material, food and markets for capital investment. This was the result of several major changes in the world economy:

i)                    Spread of industrialisation to seveal countries of Europe, the United States and Japan with the result that Britain's industrial supermacy in the world came to an end.

ii)                  There was intensification of industrialisation as a result of the application of scientific knowledge to industry. Modern chemical industries, the use of petroleum as fuel for the internal combustion engine and the use of electricity for industrial purposes developed during this period.

iii)                There was further unification of the world market because of revolution in the means of international transport.

A new search for raw material, food and markets:

-          The new industries in many industrialised countries consumed immense quantities of raw materials.

-          Rapid industrial development also led to continuous eypansion of urban population which needed more and more food. There now occurred an intense struggle for new, secure and exclusive markets and sources of agricultural and mineral raw materials and foodstuffs.

-          Moreover, the development of trade and industry at home and extended exploitation of colonies and semi-colonies produced large accumulations of capital in the capitalist countries. Simultaneously there occurred concentration of capital in fewer and fewer corporations, trusts and cartels and merger of banking capital with industrial capital. Outlets had to be found for this capital. This led to large scale export of capital. Once again the developed capitalist countries began a search and compete for areas where they could acquire the exclusive right to invest their surplus capital.

Thus in their search for markets, raw materials and fields for capital investment the capitalistic countries began to divide and re-divide the world among themselves.

Political and ideological purpose: Colonialism at this stage also served important political and idealogical purpose in the metropolitan, that is, imperialist countries. Chauvinism or aggressive nationalism based on the glorification of empire could be used to tone down social divisions at home by stressing the common interests in empire. The British, for example, raised the slogan that "The Sun never sets on the British Empire" to spread pride and a sense of contentment among workers on whose slum-houses the Sun seldom shone in real life. The French talked of their "Civilising Mission", while Japan talked of Pan-Asianism and claimed to be the champion of the Asian people.

Let us understand this stage with the Indian example.

As we have seen above that during this stage, Britain's position in the world was constantly challenged and weakened by the rival capitalistic countries. It now made vigorous efforts to consolidate its control over India. Reactionary imperialist policies now replaced liberal imperialist policies. This was reflected in the viceroyalties of Lytton, Dufferin, Lansdowne and Curzon.

(a)    Relationship with colonial economic policies: The strengthening of colonial rule over India was essential to keep out the rivals, to attract British capital to India and to provide it security. After 1850, a very large amourt of British capital was invested in railways, loans to the Government of India, trade and to a lesser extent in plantations, coal mining, jute mills, shipping and banking in India. India also performed another important role for Britain. Its army -men and financial resources - could be used to fight Britain's rivals in the struggle for the division and re-division of the world. In fact, the Indian army was the chief instrument for the defence, expansion and consolidation of British empire in Africa and Asia. The result was a costly standing army that absorbed nearly 52 per cent of the Indian revenues in 1904.

(b)   Relationship with British polity and administration: Politically and administratively the third stage of colonialism meant renewed and more intensive control over India. Moreover, it was now even more important than ever before that colonial administration should reach out to every nook and corner of India. The administration now became more bureaucratically tight,efficient and extensive than earlier. Railways were built at even a faster rate.

(c)    Relationship with socio- cultural policy: Even the limited changes produced an intelligentsia which began to oppose colonialism and analyse the mechanism of colonial exploitation. The British administrators increasingly assumed a neutral stand on social and cultural questions, and then began to support social and cultural reactionaries in the name of preserving indigenous institutions.

(d)   Relationship with ideology of the rulers: A major change now occurred in the ideology of colonialism. All talk of training the Indian people for self-government died out. (It was revived in the 20th century after 1918 as a result of pressure from the Indian national movement). Instead, the aim of British rule was declared to be permanent 'trusteeship' over the Indian people. Indian people were declared to be a permanently immature, a 'child' people, needing British control and trusteeship. Geography, 'race', climate, history, religion, culture and social organisation were cited as factors which made Indians permanantly unfit for self- government or democracy. Britain had, therefore, to exercise benevolent despotism over them for centuries to come.

WHY: The more pertinent question is why? If one glances at the 16^th century world, one finds that the Ottoman empire, the Mings in China, and the Mughals in India were doing very well. Then, what enabled this imperialism and expansion by these European nations?

Lets take a jist of this with the help of the following table,

MERCANTILE STAGE	FREE TRADE COLONIALISM	FINANCE CAPITAL STAGE
Exploitation through establishing monopoly of trade and direct appropriation of revenues	Exploitation through free trade based on unequal exchange and international division of labour	Exploitation through invested accumulated capital in colonies to extract profit.
From 1757- 1813 in India	1813- 1860s in India	1860s onwards
No major change in socio economic policy. No criticism of local culture etc	Radical change in socio- economic policy (esp law of contracts, legal procedures and local culture subjected to sharp criticism	British support to socio cultural reactionaries, criticism of indigenous culture continues

1.3   How colonialism and imperialism impacted the world, especially india

ECONOMICALLY,

Colonialism is a social formation in which different modes of production coexist from feudalism to petty commodity production to agrarian, industrial and finance capitalism. Colonialism produced a society which was neither capitalist as in Britain nor was it pre-colonial or pre-capitalist. Thus, for example, India under British rule neither resembled capitalist Britain nor was it basically similar to Mughal India. The development of agrarian relations in the colonies- in India, or Egypt, or Indonesia- makes this aspect quite clear. For example, landlordism in both zamindari and ryotwari areas of British India was something new; it did not exist in Mughal India. It was the creation of British rule. It was the result of the colonial rulers' efforts to transform Indian agriculture. Indian agriculture was not capitalist but it had many capitalist elements; for example, property relations were capitalist; land was now a private property which was freely bought and sold on a large scale.

The system of agrarian relations that developed was thus' neither capitalist nor feudal - it was semi-feudal and semi-capitalist. The techniques of production in agriculture remained stagnant. The colonial government paid no attention to modernisation in this area. (This aspect needs to be understood when we study permanent settlement or ryotwari or mahalwadi, and only then we’ll be able to explore linkages of these with peasant movements)

One basic feature of colonialism is that under it the colony is integrated into the world
capitalist system in a subordinate position.

1.      But this integration is characterized by unequal exchange. The exploitative international division of labour meant that the metropolis produced goods of high value with high technology and colonies produced goods of low value and productivity with low technology. Eg. The colony produced raw materials while the metropolis produced manufactured goods.

2.      The colony was articulated with the world market but internally disarticulated. Its agricultural sector did not serve its industry but the metropolitan economy and the world market.  Eg. All cotton from Egypt was going to Britain for its mills, while there was not a single mill in Egypt.

3.      The drain of wealth took place through unrequited exports and state expenditure on armed forces and civil services. (Refer bipin chandra drain of wealth chap)

4.      Foreign political domination

POLITICALLY,

Unlike capitalism, where the surplus is appropriated on the basis of the ownership of the means of production, under colonialism surplus is appropriated by virtue of control over state power.
1. The colonial state itself was a major channel of surplus appropriation. The state was actively involved in reproducing conditions for appropriation of capital, including producing goods and services. The metropolitan ruling class used the colonial state to control colonial society.
2. The colonial state guaranteed law and order and its own security from internal and external dangers. Eg. The way Indian army was used to guard Britain’s own interests.

3.It suppressed indigenous economic forces hostile to colonial interests.

SOCIOLOGICALLY,

1.       The colonial state actively fostered the identities of caste and community so as to prevent national unity.

2.      India’s culture and social organisation were declared unsuitable and decadent. Indian culture and society were now subjected to sharp criticism. This is also a form of conquest and subjugation. It is the conquest of the processes by which people understand themselves, and find their peace.

We shall discuss this in detail with reference to India in the coming chapters.

APPLICATION

An effort has been made above to explain briefly the process by which India underwent 200 years of colonial rule, and what the phenomenon of colonisation actually means for the economy, polity and society of a country. Now, it becomes important to discuss as to how the above knowledge may be useful for UPSC mains paper one.

Before going further, lets look at the kind of questions that can be asked from this theme. Again remember these are the questions requiring amalgamation of world history concepts and modern Indian history analysis.

Although there is no perfect way of answering them, I have attempted to share different approaches of writing answers here like:

1.      Simple explanation/ definition with an elaborate big example. (Q1)

2.      Dissecting the question itself and justifying both sides of it with varied examples in points. (Q2)

3.      Taking a stand in the question and defending it with examples in points. (the most difficult but powerful)(Q3)

4.      To learn to use similar data and examples in tackling different kinds of questions asked from the same theme. (Q4)

Q1. What to you understand by the terms imperialism and colonialism? Do you agree with the view that the two were the two sides of the same coin, viewed from different sides? Explain with an example.

Q2. Imperialism was portrayed as the white man’s burden, which it definitely was not. In fact it turned out to be poor man’s burden. Do you agree?

Q3. To what extent, did the expansion of European powers in the late 19^th century help in the modernisation of Africa?

Q4. To what extent did the British colonial conquest of India help in the modernisation of India?/ A different way of asking this can be “Examine the linkages between the simultaneity of the birth of Industrial revolution and the British empire in India.” Or “Examine the importance of India as a colony in the expansion of British imperialism.”

Q2. It were commercial and industrial interests which led to the phenomenon of establishment of colonies by Europe. Examine.

Q3. Different European powers followed different colonial designs, but their ambition remained the same. Discuss.

Simple explanation/ definition with an elaborate big example.

Q1. What to you understand by the terms imperialism and colonialism? Do you agree with the view that the two were the two sides of the same coin, viewed from different sides? Explain with an example.

Imperialism means the extension of power or rule by a country over the social, economic and political life of areas outside its borders. This may be done by establishing colonies by conquest or other means, and making them dependent via direct (eg India) or indirect (eg. China) methods.

While imperialism is the system which prevails in the metropole, colonialism is the system of domination which prevails in the colonies. It may be thus defined as the system by which the colony is exploited in different stages for the benefit of the capitalist class of the metropolis.

In other words, the same system of capitalism, which produces development in the metropolis, creates under development in the colony, and the colony gets linked with the world capitalist system, but in a subservient way. Therefore, the two can be said to be the two sides of the same coin. From the metropolis side, it is imperialism from the colony’s side, it is colonialism.

One can analyse this with the help of the Indian example. The imperial economy of Britain benefitted immensely from accumulation of resources from colonies which contributed to the rise of industrial capitalism in Britain. Bipin Chandra draws our attention to the simultaneity of birth of the Industrial Revolution and the British Empire in India, which, interestingly, was not merely coincidental. The conquest of Bengal in 1757 enabled the systematic plunder of India and the Industrial Revolution took off around 1750. On the other hand, the colonial economy of India remained neither pre- capitalist, nor capitalist, but became colonial. Indian agriculture, for example, was not capitalist but it had many capitalist elements; for example, property relations were capitalist; land was now a private property which was freely bought and sold on a large scale. Similarly, railway construction was done in a manner to benefit the British capitalists.

Even politically, Political control over India enabled Britain to mobilise its material and human resources during the two world wars and protect Britain’s own strategic interests. On the other hand if one looks at the colonial polity, laws made in India were not to benefit India, but to protect commercial interests of the British capitalist class.

Similarly, sociologically, knowledge was used as a form of subjugation to benefit the imperial country ( education policy designed to help in colonial administration and to produce babus with British tastes who would in turn serve as a market for british products) and exploit the colonial country (no education for masses, no science and technology related education, condemnation of indigenous culture).

Dissecting the question itself and justifying both sides of it with varied examples in points.

Q2. Imperialism was portrayed as the white man’s burden, which it definitely was not. In fact it turned out to be poor man’s burden. Do you agree?

Imperialism means the extension of power or rule by a country over the social, economic and political life of areas outside its borders. This may be done by establishing colonies by conquest or other means, and making them dependent via direct (eg India) or indirect (eg. China) methods. The phenomenon became a hallmark of European expansion from 1492 to 1950s.

Having advanced itself in scientific revolution, modern state and bureaucracy, and later on in the industrial revolution, European countries used all of these to control, dominate and exploit the non- European world, and portrayed this domination as’white man;s burden’ to justify it ideologically. (here, I have dissected the question itself, and explained it with examples)

WHAT THEY PORTRAYED- ‘White man’s burden’

The term ‘white man’s burden’ used by Rudyard Kipling in his poems was used frequently to portray the following:

1.      Racial superiority of the whites over other races and the concept of ‘social darwinism’. Eg. The Illbert bill controversy.

2.      Europe as ‘dynamic’ due to achievements in modern state, science and industry; and the rest of the world as incapable of change to which now Europe wished to breathe new life. Eg. The arguments like in future the ‘orientals could study their own languages, histories and cultures ‘scientifically’ only in the western centres of learning, reflected in the famous Macaulay minute.

3.      Europe’s responsibility to ‘modernise these countries by transplanting capitalist relations and restricting the role of ‘feudal tradition’.

WHAT IT WAS IN REALITY: POOR MAN’S BURDEN

In reality all of this was due to demand for cheap tropical raw material, cheap labour to work in factories and plantations, control over bigger markets and for glory and prestige in an age of nationalism.

For all the above reasons, this phenomenon led to:

1.      De- industrialisation in the colonial countries like India, where thousands who were employed in spinning and weaving were thrown out of work into poverty.

2.      High land revenue, changed land relations and skewed cropping patterns towards commercial crops led farmers into poverty and famine.

3.      Continuous drain of wealth in various forms from India to Britain led to impoverishing India.

4.      In fact, even in the metropole, the poor remained in bad conditions. In words of late Bipin Chandra, the slogan “the sun never sets on the British empire was used to generate pride among British workers, on whose shovels the sun seldom shone in real life”

Thus, in reality, it were the poor who were shouldering the burden, whether it was the “civilising mission of the French”, “sun never sets on the British empire of the British” or the pan- Asianism of Japan.

Taking a stand in the question and defending it with examples in points.

Q3. To what extent, did the expansion of European powers in the late 19^th century help in the modernisation of Africa?

Both colonial rulers and later day apologists presented colonial rule in Africa as a blessing, however an objective analysis reveals a different picture.

It may be true that modern infrastructure (railways, suez canal etc), capitalist relations in agriculture, health and education development may not have reached Africa without colonial rule.

However the negative impacts were huge, in all spheres and long lasting. Hence this modernisation was a pseudo – modernisation. (here I have chosen to take a stand and justify it with examples)

SOME ILLUSTRATIONS

1.      The very manner in which this continent of 28 square kilometre was partitioned and occupied via treaties and conquest reveals that the primary motive was never and couldn’t be ever modernisation.

2.      Colonial powers destroyed the self- sufficient African economies, and transformed them into single- crop economies. Eg. How the British converted Egypt into a supplier of cotton for the former’s textile industry; while there was not a single mill in this land of cotton! Similar was the case of Ghana(cocoa), Nigeria (oil) and Zaire (copper).

3.      As regards, creation of modern infrastructure like railways, Suez canal etc is concerned, yes modern infrastructure was created but the way Egypt was enmeshed in loans for a project like suez canal in which she herself had no benefit at that point of time reeals the nature of this modernisation.

4.      Colonial powers harnessed Africa’s resources (natural, manpower and economic) not to lead to Africa’s development, bot for the development of the mother country leading to under- development in Africa. Eg.

-          Natural: Iron ore and phosphorate of Algeria by France

-          Manpower: Slaves to work in plantations

-          Economic: How during the first world war, crops of Egypt were seized by British army and British treasury took over the gold reserves of National bank of Egypt

5.      Superimposition of artificial territorial boundaries in a n essentially tribal society led to ethnic conflicts which have till today paralysed many ccountries of Africa.

6.      Cold war politics and present problems.

To learn to use similar data and examples in tackling different kinds of questions asked from the same theme.

Q4. To what extent did the British colonial conquest of India help in the modernisation of India?/ A different way of asking this can be “Examine the linkages between the simultaneity of the birth of Industrial revolution and the British empire in India.” Or “Examine the importance of India as a colony in the expansion of British imperialism.”

Late historian Bipin Chandra had drawn our attention to the simultaneity of the birth o and of Industrial revolution in Britain and the British empire in India. (If you know from where the statement in the question had been picked up, there can be no better start that quoting the person). The conquest of Bengal in 1757 enabled the systematic plunder of India, and the Industrial revolution took off around 1750. It is important to understand how this systematic plunder led to the accumulation of capital which helped the Industrial revolution in Britain to take off. Not just the take off but India also played an important role in sustaining it.

ECONOMICALLY,

1.      British industries, especially textiles were dependent on exports heavily, and India absorbed a good percentage of British exports.

2.      India acted as a provider of raw material and export surplus with other countries. Eg. How opium from India was sold in China, enabling the triangular trade with China, thus beginning the indirect imperialist exploitation of China.

3.      India helped in the growth of heavy industries in Britain. Eg. Backward linkage effect of railway construction in India(to be discussed in chapters ahead). Another example is of British shipping, which grew leaps and bounds on the back of its control over India’s coastal and international trade.

4.      India acted as a financer of British BoP deficit. Eg. The home charges and interest payments on Indian public debt were used for financing Britain’s BoP deficit.

5.      India strengthened Britain’s position as an International financial centre. EG. India’s trade surplus with the rest of the world and her trade deficit with England allowed England to square her international settlements on current account. Also India’s monetary reserves helped England.

STRATEGICALLY,

1.      Indian army was the only large scale army contingent available to Britain.

2.      India’s location at the head of the Indian ocean was astrategic one.

POLITICALLY,

Back at home, British ruling classes were able to keep their political power intact even when it was being riven with class conflict using the pride and glory underlying the slogan “sun never sets on the British empire” to keep workers contented.

This similar data needs to be used in different manners to answer above questions.

Hope it was helpful. Best wishes.