British Raj: The good, the bad and the ugly

Radhika Raje Gaekwad, Maharani of Baroda

The British raj was a colonising power and there is no way to look at anything they did in India in a positive light. The things for which they are looked up to, such as introducing the railways and the postal and telegraph services, while undoubtedly useful, were not purported to benefit the Indians but to further the British power in India. It is well known from Gandhi's experience in South Africa that Indians were only allowed to travel in the third class, never with the British.

Perhaps, the only good thing that came of the British rule is that it helped unify us as a nation.

BR Mani, DG, National Museum and former Addl DG, Archaeological Survey of India

It was during the British rule that archeology as a science and a separate discipline was developed, and the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) was founded. Subsequent to that, it was the British and the Europeans who worked diligently to reveal India’s ancient past. Whatever we see today, the monuments that are still there, they are part of this enterprise of the British. In that way, the archaeologists from Britain and other parts of Europe have made a huge contribution.

But we can’t say that it was all good. We know very well that a large number of antiquities and other artefacts were taken away by the Britishers and are lying in private collection now in many cities in the United Kingdom and Europe. Of course, at that time there were no laws against taking antiquities out of India. But It was not a very ethical thing to do.

Pushpesh Pant, Food critic and historian

What I like the colonial influence on Indian food habits is how their introduction of roads and railways pushed people to travel, gradually forcing them to abandon age-old social hang ups about Hindu paani-Muslim paani, kacchi rasoi-pakki rasoi etc in favour of more travel-friendly habits. With influences from an alien culture—both new tastes and techniques—mixing up our palate, we essentially became more open, gastronomically.

What I do not like however is how in the process, we started looking down on our traditional eating and cooking habits. Pasta became cool and sevai (essentially a variant of pasta) became passé. Eating with hands became uncouth, where as Indian food demands the use of hands to the texture and temperature of our meals can be physically manipulated for best taste. It is ironic that multinational companies with instant poha/upma mixes have to remind us that there exists an endless array of Indian regional nashtas from each state that we can experiment with, instead of turning to egg-toast or packaged cereals.

Ajit Ranade, Economist

The network of railways and coastal systems, the administrative system – especially in rural areas, land-revenue system, cartographic techniques and several institutions that we inherited from British rule have been great economic mobilisers. Their motivations for building them is another story, but that these systems have endured indicates their worth. Thanks to the Geological Survey of India, for instance, we know the value of our mineral reserves. With 1.5 lakh offices, today we have the world’s largest postal service network; while it enabled couriering earlier, postal offices now have banking licenses and can easily become digital service kendras with optical fiber linkage. Moreover, language too is a currency. We accept it believing in its utility elsewhere. And currency is a unifier. So to that extent, English has been of great economic value to India.

But the fact remains that a lot of British policies were aimed at commercial exploitation. Then be it the man-made famines, deepening poverty or impoverishment led by sourcing of raw materials for cotton and steel industries from India, while finished-goods industries weren't allowed to develop here. This was recorded and presented to the British by one of our earliest economists, Dadabhai Naoroji. Finally, our initial socialist model of development, which emphasised on import substitution, was partly guided by Fabian socialism of the early 1900s. And our instinctive denial of economic freedom – evident in how India is lagging behind in economic freedom index despite great efforts towards reforms – is also a hangover of colonial times.

Gurudatt Singh, (86), witness to Partition

The one thing I did like about the British was their punctuality. They never wasted people's time, which isn't seen in our politicians today.

Purabi Dasgupta, (88), witness to Partition

While it is true that the British rulers took up certain infrastructural and educational projects that showcase enterprise, such 'benefits' of the Raj do not hold when you think about their treatment of and impact on the people. 200 years of discriminating against us 'natives', followed by divisive politics based on religion, makes it difficult to dwell on the positive outcomes of what was, without a doubt, an exploitative rule. The few good men of the time, mostly European missionaries (they were all sahibs back in the day) whose priorities lay not with the administration or commerce but social reforms, should be remembered in good faith. But then,I see the likes Charles Freer (Dinabandhu) Andrews as epitomes of individual greatness—not to be confused with the larger British presence in India.

Rakyesh Omprakash Mehra

The one good thing that the Britishers did during their reign in India was that they united India in terms of administration, civil services, railways. The bad thing was that they left her divided.

Kishore Desai, Officer on Special Duty, NITI Commission

Regardless of the Britisher's vested interest in building the railways, it ended up being a pivot for the economy and a vital mode of transport for public at large. Some of the heritage lines including the Himalayan Darjeeling, Matheran, and Kalka-Shimla and many major routes like Mumbai-Howrah, Delhi-Howrah etc were set up by the Britishers.

On the other hand, bureaucracy, as an institution, was designed for the British to enable them to rule India—giving bureaucrats the power without making them accountable to the people. This system served the Britishers well but the legacy is still being carried forward. Although it is evolving, it still doesn’t provide any incentive for people who are within the system to change. I wish the bureaucracy could have been an institution that was much more agile, accountable and performance oriented.

Raj Rewal, Architect

It was common for the victors in the past to raze symbolic buildings. Ghazani did it, and the British were no better. They plundered the Red Fort of Delhi in 1857. It was one of the most magnificent palaces of the world, and according to architectural historians, surpassed in grandeur and scale, Topkapi palace in Istanbul and Forbidden city in Beijing. Yet only ten to twelve percent of the Red Fort’s complex remains today. British forces also devastated the city of Lucknow and obliterated its beautiful baroque buildings. We have only records of Lucknow architecture through photographs of the city by a French photographer.

Having said that, one has to give credit to British archeologists for rediscovering and preserving some of our great buildings like Sanchi Stupa, Ajanta-Ellora caves, and the Khajuraho temples. If not for them, these world heritage sites would have been lost forever to India and the world. There were dedicated British archeologists who spent years in India to preserve for posterity the wealth of Indian architecture. They established the Architectural Survey of India (ASI) which was responsible for maintaining and recording historical sites. Historians like Fergusson, Havel and Percy Brown have paved the way for future Indian studies of our past. It may not be out of place to mention the contribution of British architects like Lutyens and Baker as well as Swinton Jacob, who built some truly great works in India.

On the other hand, the imperialists stole the Kohinoor from Lahore, whisked away priceless sculptures from Amravati to British Museum and even made a valiant attempt  to record piece by piece the marbles of Taj Mahal, so it could be rebuilt in England.

Vikas Dilawari, Conservation Architect

Looking back from the Built Heritage Conservation point of view, we inherited some prime landmarks in the 19th and 20th century. Built during the colonial rule, these are the proud combined heritage of today, like the Rashtrapati Bhavan in New Delhi, Mumbai’s Chhatrapati Shivaji Terminus railway station (now a World Heritage Site) and Victoria Memorial in Kolkata. These were designed and conceived by the British, but executed using local skills which make them so special. 

Apart from iconic public landmarks, they gave us the great infrastructure facility too, like the railways. Though it benefited their needs for exporting the cotton and other produce and for shifting of their troops for defence as per the needs, the railways have helped in unifying the country; and has now become the single largest employer. The new cities like Kolkata, Chennai , Mumbai and Delhi are world class cities and the latter two are finest examples of urban planning and are contesting the world heritage status. We also inherited from them the museums (‘aajeeb ghar') and institutions like the ASI and Geological Survey of India (GSI). The ASI was responsible for mapping and documenting the actual built heritage wealth of the country in the mid-19th century, before focussing on caring for them so that the next generations cherishes them. Special manuals were written for conservation and these are still very useful even in today’s context. 

The only thing which we perhaps lost was the continuity with some of our traditions and guilds as we adapted to a different school of thought.

Arvindkumar Srivastava, former Addl General Manager, Central Railways

Although the British are generally credited exclusively for the introduction of the railways in India, the landmark event in our country's transportation history involved Indians from the start. RM Stephenson, one of the founders of railways in India, expanded on industrialist Dwarkanath Tagore's idea of maximising profits in the coal business by merging the entrepreneur's Great Western of Bengal Railway Company with East Indian Railway in 1854, when the first train reached Hooghly from Howrah (West Bengal)—8 years after Tagore's death. Its coaches too, were built in India. Mercantile Indians like Syed Abdoolah, Baboo Ramghopaul Ghose and Mutty Lal Seal had all pushed for a large scale, country-wide introduction of railways.

History can hardly be judged in black and white. The British accelerated huge socio-economic changes in India, many of which had a cataclysmic impact, but their rule also brought along technology and industry, which made in a dent in social stratification and helped create the idea of a different India.

Gautam Bhatia, Lawyer

I don't like anything about the British rule. As a person who works on legal history, I can say that one very bad impact of the colonial legal and judicial system was that it didn't take into the account the diversity in religions and walks of life that existed in India.

When the system stated that the communities in India can be governed by its own personal laws, it assumed a very rigid meaning of communities, i.e. Hindus or Muslims, and ignored the fact that within Hindus and Muslims exist a wide range of communities. Also, there are many communities who do not identify themselves with either, but British administered personal law did not take into account that kind of diversity.

Rimi B Chatterjee, Professor of English Literature and translator 

While the value of translations done during the British period depended on who was translating and for what purpose, (for instance, the disparate outcome of two translations of the Granth Sahib, the Sikh holy book—a disastrous first attempt by the India Office-appointed German missionary named Ernest Trumpp and later, the extensive labours of Irish Sikh-convert Max Arthur Macauliffe) colonial translation largely happened within a hegemonic framework which privileged Western 'rationality' over eastern 'mysticism'. It is also true that individuals had a lot of latitude to interpret their task in the way they chose. So, for every example of a heroic attempt to bridge a cultural gap and produce true illumination, there are a handful of counterexamples of vested interests producing politically motivated and biased translations. Whatever the collective outcome of British role in the area of textual translations, it must be remembered that any colonialism is a poisoned chalice. The British were a minority in this land even in their heyday, so they had to rule mostly by means of agile public relations as much as military might.

Translation, scholarship, education, cultural bridge-building—all had a role to play in 'selling' British rule to Indians. 

For our part, we have inherited both the weaknesses and the strengths of European post-Enlightenment thought. On one hand, it infused Indian thought systems with new vigour, but on the other it has also infected us with many of their problems, such as the split between mind and matter and the hankering after unified structures of authority. This happens when cultures collide. But I do believe, now that the British Empire is dead for us as a political category, we can and should evaluate their gifts to us from a new, critical, and independent perspective.

Brinda Miller, Contemporary artist

The Britishers have given us great old architecture from the gothic to art deco – I've grown up with this period and absolutely love it. Mumbai, after Miami, is the second largest art deco districts, especially Marine Drive. My grandparents’ home on Marine Drive, right from the furniture to the lights, is art deco. I love the typical art deco bands that run across buildings, the geometrics, and the font used for building names, especially for those around the Oval maidan at Churchgate – Palm Court and Queen's Court. In fact, years ago, my husband and I had done an exhibition at the NGMA, Mumbai, on all things art deco. ​
In art, we’re yet to get the museum culture that the British gave us in the form of museums like Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj Vastu Sangrahalaya (CSMVS). Also, the Britishers definitely influenced the Parsis, who began art galleries – Cymrosa, Pundole, Chemould Prescott Road and Jehangir Art Gallery, and even the JJ School of Art. It’s amazing how these still remain. The rest of the art world in Mumbai has come about because of their influence. Pundole artist, MF Husain painted the British Raj series. Jehangir Sabavala, who came from a well-read Parsi family and went to art school abroad, absorbed painting techniques from the British – who in turn were influenced by classical artists such as Turner – and became a wonderful painter. The British were not as famous as the Europeans for their art, but they were connoisseurs, patrons and art collectors, just like many Parsis are today.
There’s nothing that I don't like about what the British left behind. I think we've imbibed all their positives. Many say they’ve ruined India, but I think that’s like blaming your parents for what you are. We could've easily decided to go the way we wanted.

AK Bakshi, Retd Lieutenant General 

I appreciate the Army Act and Army Rules and Defence Service Regulations — democratic values set by the British, which has stood the test of time. Also, they acquainted themselves to our culture and people. This sort of heritage has become a legacy in the Indian army. Today, a commissioned officer stays with his jawans in the same barrack, uses the same toilet, eats from the same langar (food), till he gets to know his men.

However, there are a few things about the British that did not gel well with the customs and traditions of this country.

The British officers were not professionally sound. They didn’t lead our troops by example — from the front — and motivate them to die for the country. Their idea of an elite officer involved wining, dining, dressing up, and playing polo and golf. It took us a lot of time to put together an effective army after Independence as we were left with no role models to copy. 

I'm not in favour of the White Hall system of Filing. Suppose, we send a case to the ministry, they will summarise our viewpoints on their own terms, process it in their office, put the outcome on a piece of paper in a new file and send it to us. The steps as to how the outcome was arrived upon isn’t revealed and I find anti-democratic. 

I also wish we didn’t have regimentalism, which, for a long time, kept the motivational level at community and sub-regional and not the whole of India. By this system, the British could play the gurkhas who fired at Janianwalla Bagh and the Sikhs in Barrackpore who testified against Mangal Pandey. They kept the Indian troops isolated from the civil society. Even today, I feel, this is largely the situation, though that is changing as we now we call ourselves ‘Indian army’ and also conduct, 'Know your army' workshops in Mumbai.

Pheroza Godrej, Art historian

With the British introduction of the railways, goods and services could be moved, and so could people. However, this came at a great cost. All these developments were to support the British colonial aspirations. We cannot view the positive outcomes of the British Raj in isolation—it has to be looked into with the context of what was happening in India at that time.

As we approach 70 years of freedom, the partition of our subcontinent remains the worst black mark of the British Rule in India. The younger generation should read about how the nation was divided and judge for themselves the hatred it's spewed.

MK Ranjitsinh, Nature Conservationist

I am no Anglophile, but to be objective, we have to give the devil its due. So let's compare what the British did with what was done by the Portuguese, Spanish, Dutch...Of all the colonial powers I've seen, the best managed forests and wildlife were in the British colonies. The British code of management for sustainable forestry was formulated around the 1860s. But they didn’t do it themselves. They had the foresight to get two Germans — Brandis (Dietrich) and Ribbentrop (Berthhold) known for reforesting the devastated Black Forest in Germany — to develop it. Back then, Germans were regarded as the world's greatest foresters.

True to Teutonic efficiency, the system formulated then holds good even today. They divided trees in biomes for rotation. Sal they observed reached its optimal state in 80 years in a particular region, so the area was divided in blocks of 80 and you would revisit a felled area after a gap of 80 years, allowing it to grow back. Their forest management system holds good even today.

As for wildlife, conservation in most princely states —inspired by interest in hunting, certain traditions and a strong sense of ownership — was better than in the British provinces run by bureaucrats, who would get transferred every few years. And yet, the Elephant Preservation Act was created in 1879, when wildlife was so plentiful, no one really bothered about it. Lions were much desired and Lord Curzon loved to hunt. On invitation by the Nawab of Junagadh, he went there for shikar, but declined to do so on learning that only had 20 lions left in their forest. After his wife sent word that only 12 rhinos were left in a place called Kaziranga in Assam, the Calcutta Presidency was directed to do something about it; today the park has over 2,000 rhinos. So the British created the infrastructure for conservation.

That said, unfair as it maybe to judge them by today's standards, one of their biggest mistakes was not to consider the importance of grasslands, the most productive terrestrial ecosystem in the world. They sacrificed grasslands for forest exploitation by moving many living in forest peripheries to forest interiors and giving them plots of land on uninhabited grasslands to till on in exchange for work at demand. With human habitation comes human impact — in this case, affecting grassland species such as the barasinga and hog deer. The forest dwellers were also treated rather poorly.