Favourable / Unfavourable?

Did the favourable consequences outweigh the unfavourable consequences of colonial economic policies for the Indian peasantry in the late 19th and early 20th centuries?

Introduction

It was only after the rebellion that took place in 1857 that the British intensified their control over India. Many economic policies in India were implemented. Though it had been argued that most of the policies that British implemented were unfavourable, we cannot deny that some of these policies were also beneficial to the development of India as a modernized state. And as a result of these policies, there was no doubt that India's economy became modernized under colonial rule.

From subsistence to commercialization

It was evident that when the British tightened their control over India, the first thing that they reformed were the economic policies. The British introduced liberal economic policies driven by market economic forces. This was to place India as part of the globalized market and to increase profit for the Mother country. Some of the changes include land and labor as commodities, development of transportation to increase communication and efficiency, and the increase of production of cashcrops instead of food crops. Though all of these led to economic modernization, we must not neglect the fact that the welfare of the Indians were not looked after by the colonial government. For colonial rulers only sought to develop industrial Britain and made their colony as agricultural India. Thus, the development of India itself was not a prime consideration.

The nature of India's ecnomy prior to 1850 was that people were under a subsistent way of life. Lands were in the hands of landlords and peasants used lands to cultivate through feudal relationships. Peasants were required to give a percentage of their harvests as monetary payments to the landlords. With the introduction of land reforms, landlords were supposed to rent lands to earn profits and also pay back the government the lease payment. Without any background of market economic forces, landlords were unable to maximize the use of lands. Thus, leaving both landlords and peasants landless.

With the implementation of new economic forces, the development of transportation system also prevailed. In 1859, there was an estimation of 432 miles of railway tracks and it increased rapidly. And in 1900, the number shot up to 25,000 miles. In addition to it, telgraphic lines also covered an estimation of 20,000 miles. Though the numbers were perhaps exaggerated, there is no doubt that these systems increased connectivity and transportation of goods all over India.
But we must also consider the fact that these systems were only limited to areas where commercialized crops were available. It did not extend to the rural and remote parts of India. Thus, the rural areas did not experience as much advantage. SO, can we still consider the development of transportation system favourable? Yes. It still helped India's economic development but did NOT improve the well-being of people.

It was also because of the connectivity that merchants became more aware of economic situations. And it was also during the period when India experienced famine in the second half of the 19th century. Merchants abused the awareness by increasing the demands, especially in remote places and unreachable areas. They were able to do this because of the free market economic forces (laissez-faire system), a system without government intervention. This was perhaps one of the reasons, besides food shortages and famines, why many died because of starvation.

The increase of trade also part of the economic policies that the British implemented in India. India was involved in global trading (with China, Malaya, Europe, Japan), thus making her closer to the outside world. It was such an anomaly, however, that when India experienced famine in the second half of the 19th century, but food supplies were still exported to other parts of the world. There was an estimation of 6.4 million cwt of wheat exported to Europe in 1877 and 1878, a period when India was suffering of starvation. Despite all the developments to increase India's economy, it was evident that the British regarded India only as a revenue of plantation. There was not much done to alleviate the problems of the famine.

During the period of sufferings, there was also a stasis in population growth. So did the colonial economic policies favourable or unfavourable to the Indian peasantries? My stand is yes to the economic development but no to the well-being of its people. In addition to it, these policies did not completely improve the living standards of peasants because all in all they were still living under the hardships and segregation of colonial rule. They were still peasants that worked for the benefits of Europe! In conclusion to the arguments, colonial economic policies mostly brought unfavourable consequences rather than favourable.