Does Britain Owe Reparations To Her Former Colonies

Name: Arijeet MajumdarIndian Economy & Policies
1501005
Section: A, Roll:
Does Britain owe reparations to her former colonies?

There is several increasing international pressure from the former colonies for reparations
from former colonial powers. Afro Americans, Afro Caribbean and several other former
colonies are now demanding reparations for the sins which have been done to their ancestors.
For this burning issue, on May, 2015, the Oxford Union held a debate on whether "Britain
owes reparations to her former colonies". Former Conservative MP Sir Richard Ottaway,
Indian politician and writer Shashi Tharoor and British historian John Mackenzie were the
three major personalities who took part in the debate. Shashi Tharoor debated in support of
the motion, which went viral in India after he tweeted it out from his personal Twitter
account. His argument has found favour among Indians, where the subject of colonial
exploitation remains the same. Some of the key points highlighted in the debate is explained
belowMr. Tharoor debated that India held almost quarter of the world economy before Britain came
to India. India had 24% share of the worlds total economy which was even greater than the
whole Europes GDP. But after 200 years of British rule in India, the GDP of India trickled to
only 3% at the time of the independence. He also instated that India was governed for the
benefit of Britain not of its own. Britain's rise for 200 years, when they were in India, was
simply financed by India. India was Britain's most significant golden-goose at the end of the
19th Century, this means that India was the world's biggest purchaser of British exports as
well as it sourced highly quality and cheap employment for British civil servants. He
concluded his statement by saying that we literally paid for our own oppression.
Once known as the industrial hub of Asia, India was slowly erased from the picture of
industrialisation. Britain de-industrialised India to fuel its own industrial revolution. Britain
destructed Indian textile industry altogether and replaced it by the manufacturing in England
making India as the feeder market of Britains textile industry. Britain not only just destructed
Indias rich textile industry but it also drained out Indian raw material like cotton and silk to
Britain and exported the finished products back to India and the rest of the world at much
higher price. The handloom weavers of Bengal had produced and exported some of the
world's best fabrics, the fine muslins, it was known as the "woven air" for the lightness of the
texture. Britain's response was to cut off the thumbs of Bengali weavers, break their looms
and impose duties and tariffs on Indian cloth to just destroy the rich Indian textile industry,
while flooding India and the rest of the world with cheaper fabric from the new steam mills
of Britain. This strategy had long lasting effect on India. In Dhaka, once the centre for world
renowned Muslins, the fine weavers became beggars and the population of Dhaka fell by
almost 90%. This phenomenon destroyed Indian economy altogether. Once the great exporter
of finished goods, India went on to become the largest imported of British goods. Indias net
share of world export fell from 27% to a mere 2%.
Mr. Tharoor branded the colonialist like Robert Clive as the looter of the Indian economy. He
also went on saying that Colonialists like Robert Clive bought their "rotten boroughs" in
England with the proceeds of their loot in India. He clarified the meaning and usage of the
term by saying that loot, by the way, was a Hindi word they took into their dictionaries as

1501005
Section: A, Roll:
well as their habits, while publicly marvelling at their own self-restraint in not stealing even
more than they really did.
As we all know that the Britishers ruthlessly exploited India, between 15 and 29 million
Indians died tragically unnecessary deaths from starvation. The last large-scale famine to take
place in India was under British rule; none has taken place since, since free democracies don't
let their people starve to death. Some four million Bengalis died in the Great Bengal Famine
of 1943 after Winston Churchill deliberately ordered the diversion of food from starving
Indian civilians to well-supplied British soldiers and European stockpiles. "The starvation of
anyway underfed Bengalis is less serious than that of sturdy Greeks," he argued. When
officers of conscience pointed out in a telegram to the prime minister the scale of the tragedy
caused by his decisions, Mr Churchill's only response was to ask peevishly "Why hasn't
Gandhi died yet?", this was the concern they made that time.
British imperialism had long justified itself with the notion that it was enlightened despotism,
conducted for the benefit of the governed. Mr Churchill's inhumane conduct in 1943 gave the
lie to this myth. But it had been battered for two centuries already: British imperialism had
triumphed not just by conquest and deception on a grand scale, but by blowing rebels to bits
from the mouths of cannons, massacring unarmed protesters at Jallianwala Bagh and
upholding iniquity through institutionalised racism. They never treated Indians as their equal.
Several British administrated buildings had signs reading Dogs and Indians are not
allowed. Indian were slaved and sent to other countries to work as slave workers. The
Indians were denied their political rights. The British established the rule of law, but no
Indian was in the judicial committee creating laws during the time. The English decided the
laws, they decided the punishments, and they decided the number of breaths an Indian can
breathe in a minute.
The construction of the Indian Railways is often pointed to as a benefit of British rule,
ignoring the obvious fact that many countries have built railways without having to be
colonised for that facility. Which is more critical when it was not laid to serve the Indian
public. They were intended to help the British get around, and above all to carry Indian raw
materials to the ports to be shipped to Britain. The movement of people was incidental except
when it served colonial interests; no effort was made to ensure that supply matched demand
for mass transport. In fact, the Indian Railways were a big British colonial scam. British
shareholders made absurd amounts of money by investing in the railways, where the
government guaranteed extravagant returns on capital, paid for by Indian taxes. In his
argument he also thanked the British rapacity, for each mile of Indian railways that cost
double that of a mile in Canada and Australia.
In the past few years, as the reparations debate has been growing louder, British politicians
have in fact been wondering whether countries like India should even receive basic economic
aid at the expense of the British taxpayer or not. Actually, the aid received is 0.4%, which is
less than half of 1% of India's GDP. British aid, which is far from the amounts a reparation
debate would throw up, is only a fraction of India's fertiliser subsidy to farmers, which may
be an appropriate metaphor for this argument. For many Indians, however, it is a history of
loot, massacres, bloodshed, of the banishing of the last Mughal emperor on a bullock cart to
Burma.

1501005
Section: A, Roll:
India contributed more soldiers to British forces fighting the First World War than Australia,
Canada, New Zealand and South Africa combined. Despite suffering recession, poverty and
an influenza epidemic, India's contributions in cash and materiel amount to 8bn. Two and a
half million Indians also fought for British forces in the Second World War, by the end of
which 1.25bn of Britain's total 3bn war debt was owed to India, which was merely the tip
of the iceberg that was colonial exploitation. It still hasn't been paid.
Indians were oppressed, enslaved, killed and looted by the British for the 200 years. Indians
could have achieved all the benefits that British are enjoying without having to be colonized
to do so. Tortures are indeed tortures, whoever the perpetrator, whoever the sufferer. Wrongs
should be put right. All the statements made by Mr Tharoor are logically and historically have
some values I can say that, in my personal opinion, the Britain owes reparations to her former
colonies- not only India but all the other countries ruled by her. In any event, regardless of
whether Britain believes it owes reparations, there is a salutary lesson here for India. As has
been argued elsewhere, if we believe that India is owed something for its exploitation by
people from distant lands, so do some Indians to others. We may begin with recognising that
the Government of Indias policy of reservations was originally a small gesture of reparations
towards Indians who have been at the receiving end of social and ritual oppression for
centuries. Indeed, most Indians who participated in the freedom struggle believed that British
rule of India was as immoral as was the institution of caste.

Does Britain Owe Reparations To Her Former Colonies

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Does Britain Owe Reparations To Her Former Colonies

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Does Britain Owe Reparations To Her Former Colonies

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What were some of the key points highlighted in the debate?

How did Britain negatively impact India's economy during colonial rule?

Name: Arijeet MajumdarIndian Economy & Policies

Does Britain owe reparations to her former colonies?

Name: Arijeet MajumdarIndian Economy & Policies

Name: Arijeet MajumdarIndian Economy & Policies

You might also like