2000/07/01 by Ira Klein · 3 citations
Social Sciences · #Colonial rule #Colonialism #Development economics #Economic history #Economics #History #Independence (probability theory) #Law #Materialism #Modernization theory #Mutiny #Political economy #Political science #Politics #Politics and Conflicts in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Middle East #Poverty #Prosperity #Sociology #Statism #Subsistence agriculture
paper · doi:10.1017/s0026749x00003656
openalex publication_date 2000/07/01 · openalex created_date 2025/10/10 · openalex updated_date 2026/05/21
British rule in India probably was in the reformist van of colonial regimes, but by Independence relatively few among the Indian populace had benefited notably from Western ‘modernization’. Although praised lavishly by a past generation of English historians for equipping India for ‘rapid progress’ under ‘the rule of law’, British policies hardly represented exemplary social engineering or ‘transformed’ the prosperity, health, well being, education or career opportunities of most Indians. Early in its sway the British raj conceived of implanting on the subcontinent modes of development responsible for England's rapid progress and prosperity and the advance of its peoples. Why, then, was the success not greater of Western programs, and why did policies of economic development leave at mid-twentieth century a majority of Indians living below poverty levels drawn close to subsistence? Was Western ‘reformism’ materially exploitative, or promising but checked by the regime's major political disturbance, the ‘Mutiny’ or Revolt of 1857, or were British policies culturally suppressive, or is more complex analysis needed to comprehend the Western impact?