Karan Singh

Section B
1501107

Does Britain owe reparations to her former

Colonies
In recent years, there has been an increase in the international pressure from
former colonies for reparations from their former colonial rulers. First African
Americans, now African Caribbeans demand reparations for the treatment their
ancestors suffered during the time of slavery. Few European countries have
acknowledged the fact that injustice was inflicted upon the local people during their
colonial rule and have paid reparations as well. In 2006, Germany offered to pay
millions of euros to the Namibian Government to compensate for the German
Armys genocide against the Herero tribe in the early 20 th century. In 2010, Britain
formally apologized for its armys conduct in the infamous Bloody Sunday killings
in Northern Ireland in 1972. Italy has formally apologized for its past injustices
during its 30 year reign in Libya early last century, and agreed to pay $5 billion in
reparations to Tripoli. Britain agreed to compensate 5,228 Kenyans who were
tortured and abused while detained during the Mau Mau rebellion of the 1950s.
In May, 2015, the Oxford Union held a debate on whether "Britain owes reparations
to her former colonies". This debate included the following speakers- former
Conservative MP Sir Richard Ottaway, Indian politician and writer Shashi Tharoor
and British historian John Mackenzie. Shashi Tharoor presented an argument which
was in support of the motion. The video of this debate went viral in India after he
tweeted it from his personal account. His argument has found favor among many
Indians, where the subject of colonial exploitation remains a topic of some
controversy.
British ruled India for 200 years. It has been said that colonialism of India by Britain
has ruined India beyond imaginable proportions. The British Government have
considered whether countries like India should receive basic economic aid at the
expense of the British taxpayer. British justify their rule in India with the fact that it
was enlightened despotism conducted for the benefit of the people of India. They
believe India has benefitted from the British rule by citing examples of railways,
parliamentary democracy and unifying English language. But the Indians, it was a
period of loot, massacres, and bloodshed. So, does Britain owe reparations to India?
Shashi Tharoor makes the argument that that at the beginning of the 18th Century,
India's share of the world economy was 23%, as large as all of Europe put together.
This share dropped to less than 4% by the time British departed India. Some
believed this was due to rapid economic transformation of Western Europe by the
Industrial revolution and expansion of other economies like United States, Latin
America, etc. Since India was a pure agrarian economy, it was not able to maintain
its world share.
According to Shashi Tharoor the reason was simple: India was governed for the
benefit of Britain not of its own. Britain's rise for 200 years during their colonial rule
in India was in turn financed by India.

Karan Singh
Section B
1501107
India was Britain's biggest cash-cow at the end of the 19th Century, this means that
the world's biggest purchaser of British exports and the source of highly paid
employment for British civil servants - all was at India's expense. He concluded his
statement by saying that we literally paid for our own oppression.
Indians were not allowed to do free trade and forced to buy cheap finished goods
from Britain. This led to de-industrialization of India. The de-industrialization of India
is known as the Britain's Industrial Revolution that includes the destruction of the
indigenous textiles and their replacement being facilitated by manufacturing in
England, using Indian raw material like cotton and silk and exporting the finished
products back to India and the rest of the world at a much higher price.
The handloom weavers of Bengal had produced and exported some of the world's
most desirable fabrics, especially cheap but fine muslins, some light as "woven air".
Britain's response was to cut off the thumbs of Bengali weavers, break their looms
and impose duties and tariffs on Indian cloth, while flooding India and the world with
cheaper fabric from the new satanic steam mills of Britain.
Thus our fine weavers became beggars, our manufacturing collapsed; the
population of Dhaka, which was once the great Centre of muslin production, fell by
90%.
This caused a great exporter of finished products, India, to transform into an
importer of British goods, while its share of world exports fell from a high of 27% to
less than 2%. The repercussions of this were felt beyond independence in the
License Raj era. Indias foreign policy is still conservative which can be inferred as
an after effect of the colonial rule.
British imperialism has since long justified itself with the pretense that it was
enlightened despotism, conducted for the benefit of the governed. Bengal famine is
one event which proves this belief wrong. 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. No Famine has taken place since, as free democracies dont let
their citizens starve to death. The British colonial period is full of such inhumane
acts like by blowing rebels to bits from the mouths of cannons, massacring unarmed
protestors at Jallianwala Bagh.
The British never treated Indians as their equals. Various English-administered
buildings had signs reading: Dogs and Indians not allowed. Indians were slaved
and sent to other countries to work as slave workers. Indians were denied their
political rights. The English decided the laws, they decided the punishments, and
they decided the number of breaths an Indian should breathe in a minute.
Some British argue that it would be quite wrong to create a myth of a peaceful
Merrier India in the pre-British period. India has been subjected to imperial
formations for much of its history. In each case, people have been dominated for the
benefit of the rulers. Much of the Indian wealth was creamed off for the benefit of
the rulers. This may have enriched a tiny elite, which in turn certainly used military
power and bloodshed to maintain their power. British might be true to some extent
but India was flourishing before the British came. Indian rulers did not slave Indians.
Indians were given political rights.

Karan Singh
Section B
1501107
The construction of the Indian Railways is often pointed to, as a benefit of British
rule, ignoring the obvious fact that many countries had built railway systems
without having to be colonized for that facility. This became all the more critical
when it was announced that it had not been 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 and used when it served colonial interests;
no effort was made to ensure that supply matched demand for mass transport. In
fact the Indian Railways was 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, Shashi Tharoor also thanked the British rapacity, for each mile of Indian
railways that cost double that of a mile in Canada and Australia.

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
material 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.
The British did offer English as a unifying language but it is quite silly to believe that
the English language did us good. Developed and flourishing countries like Japan,
China and France continue to follow their own languages, and have shown no need
for the English language.
Indians were oppressed, enslaved, killed and plundered by British for 200 years.
India has a major contribution to Britains present success and that contribution did
not come willingly. The wrongs committed on Indians should be put right. In
conclusion, I would like to say that Britain does owe reparations to India. 200 years
of injustice cannot be compensated by any specific amount, however a gesture in
the direction of atonement will be a good start.