As far as India is concerned, the so-called British colonialism was nothing less than a tormenting oppression, which pillaged and pilfered our country's resources, pushed down generations of Indian people into slavery and serfdom, killed and maimed countless of our hapless compatriots in freedom struggle, all the while enjoying drinking and debauchery at the toil and sweat of our people. Indeed, it did bring in modern technology such as railways, telegraph, hospitals etc; but that were singularly for serving their own colonial ends. In short, the colonial period was no better than a nightmare for India, notwithstanding whatever its modern-day apostles would argue.

Today's India is the result of a 700 - 800 year fiasco in which both its past rulers (British AND Indian) are equally to blame. It has produced a country that while now independent and powerful depends on a motley patchword of customs, laws, precedents and institutions left over from the British Raj, the East India Company days and the Mughal Empire.

India has had problems left over from the days of Empire both British and Mughal but it has hardly done itself any favours by not wiping the slate clean and starting again. How the hell it can still function under legislation dating back to the old Colonial government of the 1860s is beyond me!

When keys to India fell into Britain's lap it certainly wasn't part of a grand strategic plan more the result of greed and corruption in India itself on the part of Brits like Robert Clive and Indians who were happy to give way in return for a share of the loot.

Is it any wonder that it turned out like it did?

In any case this is a bad example. It doesn't explain how the likes of Malaysia and Singapore have turned into regional economic powers and yet Ghana and Nigeria (who were granted independence roughly at the same time and were given similiar levels of assistance by the British after independence) have since suffered slower starts to independent life.

Let us be clear though. By staring at our navels and bashing past colonial enemies, Africa and the 3rd World ignore a bigger danger at their peril: that of succumbing to the neo-colonialism being peddaled by China and even South Korea who are eager to secure rare earths for raw materials and land for food and are buying up land wholesale in Africa chucking indigineous landowers to the fringes.

All colonialism was bad and harmful to local areas, but the article is correct in saying some kinds of colonialism were more pernicious and evil than others. Surely, Indians would have benefitted from an independent state of their own, but under the British they did better than the Congolese did under the Belgians.

Let's take two examples of something the British did in India; one, they ended the practice of immolating wives, two, they imposed a harsh free market system onto India, including its agricultural sector. Clearly, ending the practice of sati was a humanitarian end, and did good for the area. On the other hand, Britain's imposition of European-style property and economic systems also created famines that caused millions upon millions of deaths in India over and over again.

Let's take another two examples from West Africa; the British ended slavery, but they sublated local economic interests and political rights to their own. On one hand, ending slavery was a good thing which liberated Africans from an existential threat to their livelihoods and freedom. On the other, the European legal double standards and economic exploitation created other conditions that were in many cases just as horrid as slavery.

A last obvious example would be the Spanish, who replaced Aztec human sacrifice with inquisition and extermination of all local authority figures and a brutal system of feudal peonage. While they were roundly criticizing the Aztecs for their religious practices, they hypocritically used their own religion to justify the large-scale execution or imprisonment and torture of religious dissidents both in the "New World" and back home in Spain.

Colonialists often correctly saw moral failings of the society they invaded, due to their outside status. But on the other, they were totally uncritical of their own moral failings, and thus often imposed equal or greater evils onto the societies they encountered.

It is also racist to presume, as many seem to do, that the Indian, African and Asian kings would have not traded with Europe to improve their infrastructure on their own, without outside intervention. Japan and Siam, and even Ethiopia and China, traded with Europe once they understood the nature of European technological superiority, and were more than happy to modernize on their own account. Many conquered nations were on the path to doing this when imperialized themselves; Burma was beginning to build factories of its own, Egypt was beginning to modernize, Hawaii was too ... many Imperialized states had, on their own accord, begun to look outward, but the European empires instead exploited that for selfish national ends. We may remember the story of the Cherokee, Creek and Iroquois, who tried to adopt "civilization" on their own accord, but were annexed by the US thanks to their small size and the relative youth of development in their material culture.

So in otherwords, everywhere it went, Colonialism did *some* good but the social evils and human costs to the society in question always outweighed that good.

"Many commentators give at least partial credit for India's economic success to the political institutions left in place by British colonialism."

Only the grossly uninformed. India was one of the most economically advanced regions of the world when the Europeans arrived. Under British rule the Indian textiles industry was systematically destroyed so it couldn't compete wih textiles from Lancashire. Colonialism was a crime against humanity, and I'm British myself.

Beyond the extraordinarily developed civilizations of Moenjodaro and Harappa, despite the rich Hindustani culture, colonization, as a matter of fact, brought character and polish, finesse and steadiness in South Asia.

The British were not the first colonialists to step into South Asia. However, they were the ones who absolutely transformed the Indians into the people they are now.

The value of colonization cannot be undermined. The British built structures that the Indians could never have created. Colonization gave South Asia the democratic mechanism ( the Pakis screwed up but the Indian have proudly held on to them ).

Man - have you got an Unlce tom complex (Assuming you aren't white with a name like that.). Tell the 3MM the British starved during WW2 to feed England. Or the partition. Or Kashmir. Or just general divide & conquer. S. Asia din't inherit all its evils from colonialism but to belive something like that was not a key inhibitor to development is ridicolous - might as well say Africa benefited from slavery as it allowed transportation of its population to the more prosperous west.

I don't think anyone would claim that India would be better off still under British rule. But it is hard to deny the benefits colonialism has brought. Before colonialism, India was monarchical with local tax collectors. After colonialism Indians would file a tax return. Similarly, the judicial system became one of the people, rather than one of the mob. The British gave a lot to India, but admittedly they probably stayed too long.

And with English, Indians were able to take outsourcing projects en mass from the US and become the leaders in IT outsourcing. On the long run, although India missed the industrial revolution it is on the forefront of the next big wave: IT.

The other arguments on whether India would be better off not colonized are all too theoretical.

To add to the debate about the effects of British colonialism. As a member of the Mohawk Nation, Iroquois Confederacy, our experiences with the British have been controversial. We entered into formal treaty relations with Britain 340 years ago in which our status as independent nations, on equal par under international law with the Brits, was acknowledged. We affirmed this in other agreements for the next 100 years until Britain signed the Treaty of Paris with the US in 1783 and abandoned us to the avarice and revenge of the Americans. Nonetheless, we fought as allies to protect Upper and Lower Canada during the War of 1812. We literally saved those two colonies but were once again neglected by the Brits when they signed the Treaty of Ghent. Our experiences tell us the British have no inherent sense of honour, their foreign policies are entirely self serving and based on the manipulations of their ruling class. Their lack of compassion is reflected in the manner in which they have drawn boundary lines through indigenous lands without regard for the people. Their legacy has been one of warfare, environmental degradation, international conflict and religious strife. We, the Iroquois, offer our history to the people of India. Never trust a Brit.

"Peace and security were maintained with a minimum of repression. One could travel more safely in the bled or the brousse than in some big French cities. Population was growing, thanks to the cessation of civil wars and to better hygiene. Roads and railways had broken down tribal isolation and introduced foreign influences whose sudden impact upon primitive civilizations was not without danger. New techniques and the example set by the colonists had quickly developed the economic education of the natives."

Similar, but not from the same source: http://automaticballpoint.com/2010/02/01/for-love-of-country-part-i/

Talking about the supposed benefit of colonialism is insulting to the millions of people who had to lose their lives so that the coloniser could live a life of luxury. One has to read Will Smith's book which has narrated how much loot was taken out of India by the British. It is to the credit of the Indian character that they are not asking for compensation for the huge suffering that the people had to bear.

Namaste
Ashok Chowgule
Goa,India