Should India Have Become Independent?

[Makko Oko]

Completely random question, but India as we know it today, used to be British territory, so here begs the question, would life in India be better than it is in real life right now, had Britain never granted India independence?

[Space Squid]

No.

People like to say that British occupation improved India. That they built railroads and such.

But India's economic power (expressed as a percentage of global GDP) fell every single decade under British rule. From a high point of about 38% of the global GDP prior to British arrival, to an economy smaller than Italy or Yugoslavia by the time Britain left. And I remind you things were not great for Italy or Yugoslavia in the 1940s.

Additionally Britain's callous disregard for India was demonstrated as late as WWII, when Britain casually allowed possibly as many as 3 million Indian civilians starve to death (the numbers are disputed.) Despite having the resources and ability to save them.

[Il Borgia Vaticano]

God no. India's post colonial history has been one jump from catastrophe to another. Dear lord, they couldn't even guarantee their whole population access to clean water until 2015.

https://www.business-standard.com/artic ... 726_1.html

[Page]

Decolonization was not an act of benevolence. Britain and France didn't let go of all their far away possessions because it was the right thing to do. Colonies were just no longer sustainable. They were more trouble than they're worth.

So had Britain clung to India despite the writing on the wall, I think it's fair to say things would be worse for both countries, nationalist terrorism and suicide bombings on one side and an apartheid-type minority government that commits daily atrocities on the other.

[Frisemark]

Decolonization was not an act of benevolence. Britain and France didn't let go of all their far away possessions because it was the right thing to do. Colonies were just no longer sustainable. They were more trouble than they're worth.

So had Britain clung to India despite the writing on the wall, I think it's fair to say things would be worse for both countries, nationalist terrorism and suicide bombings on one side and an apartheid-type minority government that commits daily atrocities on the other.

In France's case, they most certainly didn't let their possessions go without a fight. The horrors of the Algerian War are not something so easily forgotten. Nor is the brutality with which French forces acted in general towards their colonies.

Britain let go of their Colonies because they didn't have the money to maintain their grip. France let go of their Colonies because the French people got tired of sending boys to wars maintaining them and coming back dead-eyed shells.

Hell, even when the French people decided enough was enough, some Frenchmen—mostly commissioned officers of the military who didn't want their nationalist fervor and pride rebuked—decided "no it wasn't" and tried to use bombs, terror and assassination to reinforce that—as you mentioned things would be in India had Britain not let go.

---

Anyways, yes, India should have become independent. The issue lies in the fact that the "preparations" for independence were laughable at best from the colonial authorities who wished to spite the newly-independent India.

[LEGENDARIS]

Completely random question, but India as we know it today, used to be British territory, so here begs the question, would life in India be better than it is in real life right now, had Britain never granted India independence?

The brits didn't do much to develop the places they colonized,they only wanted their resources,spread their influence and show their might.

[Mawshire]

God no. India's post colonial history has been one jump from catastrophe to another. Dear lord, they couldn't even guarantee their whole population access to clean water until 2015.

https://www.business-standard.com/artic ... 726_1.html

I don't think Britain was exactly guaranteeing them that either - they couldn't even guarantee access to food a lot of the time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_ ... itish_rule

[Risottia]

Completely random question, but India as we know it today, used to be British territory, so here begs the question, would life in India be better than it is in real life right now, had Britain never granted India independence?

India as we know it to-day didn't use to be British territory; the British Raj was far larger than India.
I think it would have been better to split the Raj back into the various pre-British countries. Much more interesting.

[Engadine Mcdonalds 1997]

With these sorts of questions we must ask the native population of whether or not the overlord should have left, for truly we do not understand the ground situation, nor have experienced it. If the majority say that independence was a terrible move, then we should understand as such, but if independence from Great Britain is seen as a positive force by the majority, then we must also understand as such

[The Jat]

Look at India now and what it could've been by now! The British set back the Indians so much and they could actually had a powerful ally so big mistake on the British part.

[Old Tyrannia]

Absolutely. Neither Britain nor India stood to benefit from any attempt to prolong the life of the Raj against the will of the great majority of the Indian population, who, after all, vastly outnumbered their occupiers. It would have been nice if the Anglo-Indian personal union could have been preserved but I don't think that was a realistic possibility by the 1940s. The monarchies of the princely states should have been preserved, though, and the Indian monarchy could have been reformed into an elective monarchy along the Malaysian model after the death of King George VI.

No.

People like to say that British occupation improved India. That they built railroads and such.

But India's economic power (expressed as a percentage of global GDP) fell every single decade under British rule. From a high point of about 38% of the global GDP prior to British arrival, to an economy smaller than Italy or Yugoslavia by the time Britain left. And I remind you things were not great for Italy or Yugoslavia in the 1940s.

Was this because of British misrule, though, or was it the consequence of other economies undergoing rapid growth and industrialisation? You might argue that the British could have taken greater steps to industrialise India rather than shipping raw materials back to the home nations to be converted into goods, but it's difficult to argue that India would have actually faired better economically had it never been colonised at all, especially since the consolidation of British rule brought to an end a long period of intermittent warfare between various native Indian states, particularly the Mughals and the Marathas.

Additionally Britain's callous disregard for India was demonstrated as late as WWII, when Britain casually allowed possibly as many as 3 million Indian civilians starve to death (the numbers are disputed.) Despite having the resources and ability to save them.

I question the assertion that the British actually had the "resources and ability" to avert the Bengal Famine. Certainly relief efforts could have been more effective, but Britain was dealing with a world war at the time, which placed significant strain on its ability to deal with any other crises.

[Mostrov]

No.

People like to say that British occupation improved India. That they built railroads and such.

But India's economic power (expressed as a percentage of global GDP) fell every single decade under British rule. From a high point of about 38% of the global GDP prior to British arrival, to an economy smaller than Italy or Yugoslavia by the time Britain left. And I remind you things were not great for Italy or Yugoslavia in the 1940s.

Additionally Britain's callous disregard for India was demonstrated as late as WWII, when Britain casually allowed possibly as many as 3 million Indian civilians starve to death (the numbers are disputed.) Despite having the resources and ability to save them.

The decline, if it could be called that, was due to the massive growth of Europe's wealth from the industrial revolution: the causes of which were largely confined to Europe and had little to do with European colonial expansion—90% of Britain's trade during this period was with Europe. India was in an almost medieval state of development when Britain achieved paramount power on the subcontinent.

The brits didn't do much to develop the places they colonized,they only wanted their resources,spread their influence and show their might.

Britain spent an enormous amount of money and effort in creating the institutions of India: can they be criticized for establishing a uniform system of laws, from an essentially medieval fundament, or a civil service, police, hospital system and so on?

[Chan Island]

By the time the independence happened, it was less a question of whether it should -more whether it must become so with violence or without, and whether it ought to be one country or multiple. So from the point of view of avoiding mass death, especially so soon after WW2, the answer is yes.

[Ostroeuropa]

No.

People like to say that British occupation improved India. That they built railroads and such.

But India's economic power (expressed as a percentage of global GDP) fell every single decade under British rule. From a high point of about 38% of the global GDP prior to British arrival, to an economy smaller than Italy or Yugoslavia by the time Britain left. And I remind you things were not great for Italy or Yugoslavia in the 1940s.

Additionally Britain's callous disregard for India was demonstrated as late as WWII, when Britain casually allowed possibly as many as 3 million Indian civilians starve to death (the numbers are disputed.) Despite having the resources and ability to save them.

The economy of India was in free fall before the British arrived. It's why Britain was able to conquer them in the first place. The 38% figure is from the height of the Mughal period, but the Marathi rebellion had shattered the country and they were in a process of de-industrialization (from their proto-industrialization phase that they were in) and de-urbanization as a consequence. The first major inroad the British made was when the Bengali King couldn't afford to pay tax collectors due to the collapse of Bengali industry as a consequence of Marathi raiders and the collapse of their economy. He turned to the British East India company and asked them to collect the taxes for him and keep a share. The British considered this him ceding sovereignty to them and as evidence that Indians were unable to govern a country. The company then began collecting taxes on his behalf and informed him his territory was annexed into the company, but that he would continue to be paid a stipend. This formed the basic pattern that continually repeated across India as various Indian princes turned to the British because they were unable to keep order or manage the budget as a result of India's collapsing economy, and wanted to keep being kings and princes, and so needed the British to prop them up.

The British didn't grow India's economy, but they are not the reason India is poor. It was poor before they arrived, and then kept poor by the British. But even this is misleading when we examine "Why is India so poor?" as a question.

India was equal in GDP per capita to the Asian Tiger economies at the time of independence, but the Asian Tigers rapidly developed and are now as rich or richer than many western nations. India did not as a consequence of their own poor governmental policies.

Look at India now and what it could've been by now! The British set back the Indians so much and they could actually had a powerful ally so big mistake on the British part.

India's poverty and lack of development is nothing to do with the British at this point. Both Indian nationalists and westerners who hate the west are keen to insist it is despite comparative examples like the Asian Tiger economies because the alternative is to say that a third world country is third world because they keep making stupid policy decisions and that it's not actually anything to do with the evil white man or colonialism.

The westerners who hate the west are also keen to insist India is poor because of the British because the actual reason it is poor is that it pursued socialism for decades while the Asian tiger economies pursued liberal economics and as a result rapidly developed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu_rate_of_growth

"The Hindu rate of growth is a term used by advocates of liberalisation referring to the lower annual growth rate of the economy of India before the economic reforms of 1991, which stagnated around 3.5% from 1950s to 1980s, while per capita income growth averaged around 1.3%.

The usage of the term has been criticized by modern neoliberal economists as they believe that the cause of the low growth rate was the failed dirigist model and economic mismanagement.

The term contrasts with South Korea's Miracle on the Han River and the Taiwan Miracle. While these Asian Tigers had similar income level as India in the 1950s, exponential economic growth since then has transformed them into developed countries today. The economy of India accelerated and has grown at a rate of around 3–9% since economic liberalisation began in the 1990s with the exception of 2020.".

It really is as simple as that. The only time the British can be said to have been responsible for India's poverty is during the colonial period (As in, the reason India *remained* poor, not *became* poor) and in the immediate decade after decolonization. Everything since then has been a result of their own mismanagement and poor policy decisions.


Indian Nationalists and various western "Social Justice" types whine and mewl about how the British are responsible, but no economist takes any of these people seriously.

----------

As to the OP, India probably should not have been independent without a tutelage period, but once they'd set their minds to it that was that. If they were going to go Independent, they shouldn't have done so with Gandhi or his ilk leading the way. It has impoverished billions when you take a generational view of it.

The progressive whining about "Well the British only built trains from the resources to the ports" in response to "The British gave India trains" as though this proves the British were bad is also staggeringly stupid from an economic point of view. An Export-orientated economy is cited as one of the key reasons the Asian Tiger economies rapidly developed to become peers to the colonial powers. The British left India with everything it needed to become a superpower. They fucked it up, and then turn around and blame us.

Don't blame us. We told you you weren't able to govern yourselves, and you're proving us right. Well, you were until the 90s when you finally realized your mistake... until Modi, that is.

From 1850 to 1947, India's GDP in 1990 international dollars grew from $125.7 billion to $213.7 billion, a 70% increase or an average annual growth rate of 0.55%. This was a higher rate of growth than during the Mughal era (1600-1700), when it had grown by 22%, an annual growth rate of 0.20%, or the longer period of mostly British East Indian company rule from 1700 to 1850 where it grew 39% or 0.22% annually...

India's GDP (PPP) per capita was stagnant during the Mughal Empire and began to decline prior to the onset of British rule... From 1850 to 1947 India's GDP per-capita had grown by 16%, from $533 to $618 in 1990 international dollars.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_o ... ritish_Raj

I'm bored of people making shit up because they hate white people.

Indian nationalists harp on the "Share of global GDP" point to make their case that the British were bad for India because if the point to GDP or GDP per capita, they can't pretend everything was amazing before the UK arrived. But the reasons for India's declining share of global GDP are nothing to do with British rule either. It's to do with the rest of the world developing.

The USA for instance used to have an enormous share of global GDP. What changed? Well, other places got factories. It's as simple as that.

India was still able to compete during the early stages of industrialization abroad, but its market share was already declining. With the Marathi rebellion and de-urbanization, India's economy entered a free fall.

The only way "It's the British's fault our share of global GDP went down" makes sense is if you think the British are evil for inventing the steam engine. It's just the seething and coping of angry Indian nationalists who hate that the world moved away from them, not an actual sensible articulation of social justice. They're grasping at straws. And again, they have nothing to back this up.

See here.

https://www.tcd.ie/Economics/staff/orou ... nDeind.pdf

Economic decline in India has been traced to before British colonial rule and was largely a result of increased output in other parts of the world and Mughal disintegration. India's share of world output (24.9%) was largely a function of its share of the world population around 1600.

https://www.visualcapitalist.com/u-s-sh ... over-time/

The US ofcourse very famously being occupied and looted in the 60s, causing their share of global GDP to drop from 40% to 24% over those 60 years.

[The Archregimancy]

Completely random question, but India as we know it today, used to be British territory, so here begs the question, would life in India be better than it is in real life right now, had Britain never granted India independence?

India as we know it to-day didn't use to be British territory; the British Raj was far larger than India.
I think it would have been better to split the Raj back into the various pre-British countries. Much more interesting.

Or even into the princely states as they existed under the British Empire (many of which existed in some form before they came under the control of the British Raj); just think of all of the extra flags at the UN!

And who wouldn't want to be ruler of Tonk?

[Risottia]

India as we know it to-day didn't use to be British territory; the British Raj was far larger than India.
I think it would have been better to split the Raj back into the various pre-British countries. Much more interesting.

Or even into the princely states as they existed under the British Empire (many of which existed in some form before they came under the control of the British Raj); just think of all of the extra flags at the UN!

Wouldn't it be awesome? Also, more stamps, more currencies, all kind of extra collectibles!

And who wouldn't want to be ruler of Tonk?

Well I wouldn't because I wouldn't like to be saluted with a prime number of guns. I'd prefer a power of 2 greater than 8.
Also, I dislike warm climates.

[Makko Oko]

Okay let's put this into perspective, India took until 2018 to legalize same-sex marriage, meanwhile Britain had it decriminalized back in 1967 with the Sexual Offences Act. Now, I'm all for independence of governments and countries, but if you want me to be honest, which would be better? Living in an outdated society of rights, or living in an up to date society of rights?

[The Nihilistic view]

It would be better and worse, just depends what you value and what aspect you are looking at.

[Ethel mermania]

People tend to prefer to be ruled by one of their own rather than a benevolent outsider. That said the brits were not that benevolent.

So yes, India should be, and is better off being independent.

[Samrif]

Was there a huge movement for independence in India?
Since there was it is safe to assume that British rule in India was not positive.
Could the British keep India after WW2?
No as Britains economy and military power had taken a huge hit. They could not have kept control as there were rebellions and mutinies in the British Indian Armed Forces as it was mostly made of Indians and it was with the help of those Armed Forces the British had managed to maintain their power for this long.

[Kerwa]

38% is way too high. Try 20+.

And it wasn’t deindustriliazed, it just didn’t industrialize at the same rate as Western Europe.

Whatever. They really crazy thing is that based upon Victorian writings people thought they were “helping” India. They really did. 100% convinced they were a righteous force for good.

Those sort of people are still around today. And they are still a menace.

[Kingdom of the Indus]

Or even into the princely states as they existed under the British Empire (many of which existed in some form before they came under the control of the British Raj); just think of all of the extra flags at the UN!

Wouldn't it be awesome? Also, more stamps, more currencies, all kind of extra collectibles!

A German Empire-type federal monarchy system in modern India would be very cool.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_monarchy

[Bistritza]

I don't think people who ask these questions know why or how colonization during the 18th-20th centuries occurred. Without this knowledge, they don't know why or how decolonization occurred either. This is speaking from a general aspect. In the case of UK and their colonial holdings, it's even more apparent that sufficient knowledge is lacking.
Most people answering are assuming that you're asking ''What would've been more beneficial for the British Raj, in retrospective'', completely hypothetically.
So to answer that^ question instead; Yes. If British Raj was kept as a colonial possession, retaining the same status it had, it would've been a complete mayhem. This scenario would make The Troubles look like a peaceful conflict.

[Samudera Darussalam]

Wouldn't it be awesome? Also, more stamps, more currencies, all kind of extra collectibles!

A German Empire-type federal monarchy system in modern India would be very cool.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_monarchy

I suppose the problem is in "who would become the emperor", unless this rhetorical India adopted the Malaysian system or retain the Queen as the figurehead. That said, if many of these states manage to reach some compromise, it would be really interesting.

People tend to prefer to be ruled by one of their own rather than a benevolent outsider.

Also, I agree with this.
With that kind of popular support for independence, I doubt keeping the British Raj is worth it.

[PhilTech]

Yes of course! Else we won't have free tutoring services from the internet.