# Former British colonies: Why are some so much more successful than others? **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [March 2, 2014, 4:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/former-british-colonies-why-are-some-so-much-more-successful-than-others/682657 "2014-03-02T04:36:07Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![bldysabba](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ecccb3/32.png) [@bldysabba](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bldysabba)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2014, 10:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/former-british-colonies-why-are-some-so-much-more-successful-than-others/682657/21 "2014-03-05T10:24:32Z")
> [@Martini\_Enfield](#): > > We leave the US out of these threads because it became independent of Britain in 1776 - before Australia and New Zealand were even founded and long before South Africa or Canada became independent entities. The USA has been doing its own thing for 250 years and was out of British influence far too early in the proceedings to count for the purposes of these sorts of arguments. It’s a former British colony in almost exactly the same way Australia and Canada are. I don’t see what time has to do with it. > [@](#): > > There’s probably several PhD theses in that question, but as I understand it Sri Lanka has a functioning democratic system (war against the Tamils notwithstanding) which includes an effective opposition party so the question really seems to be “Why aren’t Pakistan, Bangladesh and Burma functionally democractic the way India and Sri Lanka are?” You may want to consider that Bengal was partitioned by the British in 1906 in an attempt to prevent the nationalist movement there growing any stronger. > [@](#): > > And the British _are_ to thank for India becoming the world’s largest democracy because they put the foundations there for it. The Indians chose to use those foundations and put the effort in to succeed at it, just as other countries which were once part of the British Empire did not. That doesn’t change the fact the foundations were there at independence from Britain. What foundations are you referring to? The assembly system which the British in their great wisdom installed in 1919(and with which they further attempted to drive a wedge between India’s Hindus and Muslims) came years after and in an effort to appease the Indian nationalist movement which had already organised itself politically to oppose British rule and was demanding self rule. It enfranchised barely 10% of India’s population and reserved seats for those friendly to the British. The Indian independence movement strengthened as a result of this and their numerous other exploitative policies and led to another attempt by the British to install wider democracy in 1937. The major Indian party - the Congress - lasted only two years in government then because the Viceroy took India into the second world war without consulting it. Interestingly, the Muslim league, which would later go on to fail so miserably at maintaining democracy in Pakistan and Bangladesh, did not resign and continued to govern. By your thesis, they had a greater British foundation in democracy. Why would they go on to fail while the Indians succeeded? If these 10 or 20 years of stop start democracy enforced by the Indian independence movement are for you the ‘foundation’ which the British laid for democracy in India, and they are thus to thank for India’s democracy, I am gobsmacked at your interpretation or rather, ignorance of history. It is the Indian independence movement and the remarkable spirit of its leaders which is to thank for India’s democracy, not the colonial masters from whom they had to win it. ---
**Author:** ![Quartz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quartz/32/267_2.png) [@Quartz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quartz)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2014, 10:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/former-british-colonies-why-are-some-so-much-more-successful-than-others/682657/22 "2014-03-05T10:49:56Z")
> [@bldysabba](#): > > It is the Indian independence movement and the remarkable spirit of its leaders which is to thank for India’s democracy, not the colonial masters from whom they had to win it. Educate me: what democratic structures did a pre-independence India have that were developed independently of the British? Is it not the case that democracy was a foreign concept to India before the British? ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2014, 2:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/former-british-colonies-why-are-some-so-much-more-successful-than-others/682657/23 "2014-03-05T14:14:56Z")
> [@Martini\_Enfield](#): > > Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Hong Kong and Singapore are all modern, first-world places Err, I wouldn’t group South Africa in with those others. I mean, we’re not doing too badly but we’re hardly what I’d call a developed nation overall. (first-world is so Cold War) And to the OP - in addition to everything else mentioned about settler vs resource exploitation, don’t discount the idea that the successful colonies were mostly the temperate ones, and the unsuccesful ones, the tropical ones. Malaria, tsetse fly and no place to grow barley = unhappy Brits. ---
**Author:** ![Malacandra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Malacandra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malacandra)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2014, 6:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/former-british-colonies-why-are-some-so-much-more-successful-than-others/682657/24 "2014-03-05T18:15:28Z")
> [@Quartz](#): > > Educate me: what democratic structures did a pre-independence India have that were developed independently of the British? Is it not the case that democracy was a foreign concept to India before the British? Yes, but apart from the railways, industrialization, democracy and stopping people burning widows, what did the British ever do for India? ---
**Author:** ![bldysabba](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ecccb3/32.png) [@bldysabba](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bldysabba)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2014, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/former-british-colonies-why-are-some-so-much-more-successful-than-others/682657/25 "2014-03-05T19:11:31Z")
> [@Malacandra](#): > > Yes, but apart from the railways, industrialization, democracy and stopping people burning widows, what did the British ever do for India? Ha. The railways were expanded so they could move troops around and quell resistance to their rule. Industrialisation? Stopped people burning widows in response to Rammohun roy’s petitions. Partial, massively flawed democracy which never worked in a hope to appease the Indian independence movement. Are you fucking kidding me? ---
**Author:** ![bldysabba](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ecccb3/32.png) [@bldysabba](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bldysabba)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2014, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/former-british-colonies-why-are-some-so-much-more-successful-than-others/682657/26 "2014-03-05T19:23:30Z")
> [@Quartz](#): > > Educate me: what democratic structures did a pre-independence India have that were developed independently of the British? Is it not the case that democracy was a foreign concept to India before the British? There was barely any democracy in _Britain_ before India was ruled by the British. There’s not much point to saying, oh so India was ruled by the British between 1757 and 1947(and they propped up many local monarchs in the years before that), but guess what, it didn’t independently evolve any democratic governance structures in this time! So Indian democracy is thanks to the Brits! And in pre-Independence India, The Indian National Congress, which was a large, pan-India organisation, was a quasi-democratic body that fought for independence and after independence ruled the country for very many years. Still does actually. ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2014, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/former-british-colonies-why-are-some-so-much-more-successful-than-others/682657/27 "2014-03-05T19:34:30Z")
“Industrialization” was the exact opposite of what India got. Thing is, British management of the Indian economy was incredibly inefficient. The point was to crush native industry and turn India into a resource production area. The colonies were supposed to create raw materials that were shipped to factories in Britain where they were turned into finished goods, then sold by British merchants on the world market. This was a deliberate policy of destroying India’s manufacturing capability to enrich a small group of British industrialists. It wasn’t all that effective at producing wealth for the British people, or the British empire as a whole, but that didn’t matter since the people who created the policy benefited enormously. They got a much larger slice of a much smaller pie. So yes, India got railways. How else were those raw materials supposed to get to port to be shipped back to Britain? How else are you going to move troops from one province to put down rebellions in another province? Yes, colonial taxes were low. That’s because the British didn’t conceive of India as a productive cash cow to be milked like the Mughals did, but rather it was to be turned into a vast plantation. The peasants working on the plantations couldn’t be expected to pay high taxes because they wouldn’t be paid anything above subsistence. And “India’s per capita GDP decreased from $550 in 1700 to $520 by 1857, although it later increased to $618, by 1947” isn’t exactly a sterling record of development. A decline for a hundred years, followed by a tiny increase for the next hundred years. All while industrialization was creating huge increases in wealth in other parts of the world. Reading George Orwell’s essays in the 1940s, he was convinced that Britain’s wealth was dependent on stealing a few pennies each from the Indian peasantry, and that when the Empire fell apart the British would have to accept a permanent decrease in their standard of living. But of course that wasn’t really what was happening. Britain was keeping India poor, but for almost no real net benefit to the British economy. ---
**Author:** ![Martini\_Enfield](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/martini_enfield/32/11123_2.png) [@Martini\_Enfield](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martini_Enfield)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2014, 10:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/former-british-colonies-why-are-some-so-much-more-successful-than-others/682657/28 "2014-03-06T10:31:31Z")
> [@Malacandra](#): > > Yes, but apart from the railways, industrialization, democracy and stopping people burning widows, what did the British ever do for India? A very apt use of a Monty Python reference. Well played. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Nava](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/da6949/32.png) [@Nava](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nava)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2014, 12:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/former-british-colonies-why-are-some-so-much-more-successful-than-others/682657/29 "2014-03-06T12:00:33Z")
> [@bldysabba](#): > > Ha. The railways were expanded so they could move troops around and quell resistance to their rule. And you think the Romans built roads to prettify the landscape? 😕 ---
**Author:** ![bldysabba](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ecccb3/32.png) [@bldysabba](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bldysabba)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2014, 3:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/former-british-colonies-why-are-some-so-much-more-successful-than-others/682657/30 "2014-03-06T15:43:14Z")
> [@Lemur866](#): > > “Industrialization” was the exact opposite of what India got. > > Thing is, British management of the Indian economy was incredibly inefficient. The point was to crush native industry and turn India into a resource production area. The colonies were supposed to create raw materials that were shipped to factories in Britain where they were turned into finished goods, then sold by British merchants on the world market. > > This was a deliberate policy of destroying India’s manufacturing capability to enrich a small group of British industrialists. It wasn’t all that effective at producing wealth for the British people, or the British empire as a whole, but that didn’t matter since the people who created the policy benefited enormously. They got a much larger slice of a much smaller pie. > > So yes, India got railways. How else were those raw materials supposed to get to port to be shipped back to Britain? How else are you going to move troops from one province to put down rebellions in another province? > > Yes, colonial taxes were low. That’s because the British didn’t conceive of India as a productive cash cow to be milked like the Mughals did, but rather it was to be turned into a vast plantation. The peasants working on the plantations couldn’t be expected to pay high taxes because they wouldn’t be paid anything above subsistence. > > And “India’s per capita GDP decreased from $550 in 1700 to $520 by 1857, although it later increased to $618, by 1947” isn’t exactly a sterling record of development. A decline for a hundred years, followed by a tiny increase for the next hundred years. All while industrialization was creating huge increases in wealth in other parts of the world. > > Reading George Orwell’s essays in the 1940s, he was convinced that Britain’s wealth was dependent on stealing a few pennies each from the Indian peasantry, and that when the Empire fell apart the British would have to accept a permanent decrease in their standard of living. But of course that wasn’t really what was happening. Britain was keeping India poor, but for almost no real net benefit to the British economy. This, finally, is an accurate representation of the colonial record. ---
**Author:** ![bldysabba](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ecccb3/32.png) [@bldysabba](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bldysabba)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2014, 3:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/former-british-colonies-why-are-some-so-much-more-successful-than-others/682657/31 "2014-03-06T15:52:08Z")
> [@Nava](#): > > And you think the Romans built roads to prettify the landscape? 😕 Er. The case of the Romans may or may not be analogous to British colonialism in India. What’s your point? That if the British ruthlessly exploited India and Indians over 200 years and installed extractive institutions that plague the country to this day but installed a rail network it somehow helps make India successful? Bollocks. Here btw, is what happened to the rail network before independence in 1947, and is typical of how the British treated India. > **[Indian Railways](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Railways#History)** > > Indian Railways is a state-owned enterprise that is organised as a deparmental undertaking of the Ministry of Railways of the Government of India and operates India's national railway system.\[a\] As of 2023\[update\], it manages the fourth largest national railway system by size with a track length of 132,310 km (82,210 mi), running track length of 106,493 km (66,172 mi) and route length of 68,584 km (42,616 mi). As of August 2024\[update\], 96.59% of the broad-gauge network is electrified. With mo... > [@](#): > > The Second World War severely crippled the railways. Starting 1939, about 40% of the rolling stock including locomotives and coaches was taken to the Middle East, the railways workshops were converted to ammunitions workshops and many railway tracks were dismantled to help the Allies in the war. ---
**Author:** ![bldysabba](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ecccb3/32.png) [@bldysabba](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bldysabba)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2014, 3:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/former-british-colonies-why-are-some-so-much-more-successful-than-others/682657/32 "2014-03-06T15:54:56Z")
> [@Martini\_Enfield](#): > > A very apt use of a Monty Python reference. Well played. 🙂 Fine, so I looked up Python and get the Romans reference now. But as for being valid here, it’s fucking nonsense, is what it is. ---
**Author:** ![bldysabba](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ecccb3/32.png) [@bldysabba](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bldysabba)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2014, 3:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/former-british-colonies-why-are-some-so-much-more-successful-than-others/682657/33 "2014-03-06T15:58:43Z")
> [@Lemur866](#): > > Yes, colonial taxes were low. That’s because the British didn’t conceive of India as a productive cash cow to be milked like the Mughals did, but rather it was to be turned into a vast plantation. The peasants working on the plantations couldn’t be expected to pay high taxes because they wouldn’t be paid anything above subsistence. This however, is not accurate. Colonial taxes under the Zamindari or permanent settlement system, which had been installed in half the country, were cripplingly high. The British got to do it ‘one step removed’ by auctioning off large tracts of land for unsustainable amounts to local landlords who in turn attempted to extract that value from the peasants who lived on the land, leading to massive institutional problems that persist today. ---
**Author:** ![Ryan\_Liam](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ryan_liam/32/3965_2.png) [@Ryan\_Liam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ryan_Liam)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2014, 1:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/former-british-colonies-why-are-some-so-much-more-successful-than-others/682657/34 "2014-03-08T01:03:32Z")
> [@bldysabba](#): > > And no doubt you believe they did this out of the goodness of their hearts? No, they did it to facilitate troop movement so they could put down any popular uprisings like the Mutiny of 1857. India used to be among the richest regions in the pre colonial era. By the time the Brits left, not so much. Hell yes the British were looters and their occupation was disastrous for India. > > Some good can come out of anything bad, and that’s all your two anecdotes go to show. As for your immensely ignorant statement about the British not being like the Persians come to loot the Peacock throne, are you aware of the current location of the Kohinoor diamond? India wasn’t a nation before the British came, it was a loose affiliation of ethnic identities. The India you live in, which is where I presume you are from, was shaped by British practices of law and economics, education and ideology, it was not disastrous. I’m aware of the Kohinoor Diamond, and I’m aware that it was acquired from one _empire in India_ (Sikh empire) and passed onto another empire. Thing is, what did the Persians leave in their wake other than destruction? I’ll assume you’ll say the same thing about the British, but that’s an inaccurate statement. > [@](#): > > And in pre-Independence India, The Indian National Congress, which was a large, pan-India organisation, was a quasi-democratic body that fought for independence and after independence ruled the country for very many years. Still does actually. A British civil servant helped found the Indian National Congress. > **[Allan Octavian Hume](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allan_Octavian_Hume)** > > Allan Octavian Hume, CB ICS (4 June 1829 – 31 July 1912) was a British political reformer, ornithologist, civil servant and botanist who worked in British India and was the founding spirit and key founder of the Indian National Congress. He was a proponent of Indian self-rule and strongly supported the idea of Indian independence. He supported the idea of self-governance by Indians. A notable ornithologist, Hume has been called "the Father of Indian Ornithology" and, by those who found h As an ... > [@](#): > > **Lemur866** > And “India’s per capita GDP decreased from $550 in 1700 to $520 by 1857, although it later increased to $618, by 1947” isn’t exactly a sterling record of development. A decline for a hundred years, followed by a tiny increase for the next hundred years. All while industrialization was creating huge increases in wealth in other parts of the world. I’ll agree and say it isn’t, however, you cannot ignore the situation India was in between 1700 and 1947, around the beginning of the 18th century the Mughal empire was collapsing into petty states, the enlargement of the East India Company, the Afghan invasion and sacking of Delhi, so after the consolidation of India under British rule, it’s no surprise the results of GDP increases look so unspectacular. > [@](#): > > This was a deliberate policy of destroying India’s manufacturing capability to enrich a small group of British industrialists. It wasn’t all that effective at producing wealth for the British people, or the British empire as a whole, but that didn’t matter since the people who created the policy benefited enormously. They got a much larger slice of a much smaller pie. Again, the Raj wanted India to be able to compete in manufacturing. > **[British Raj](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Raj#Industry)** > > The British Raj (/rɑːdʒ/ RAHJ; from Hindustani rāj, 'reign', 'rule' or 'government') was the rule of the British Crown on the Indian subcontinent, lasting from 1858 to 1947. It is also called Crown rule in India, or Direct rule in India. The region under British control was commonly called India in contemporaneous usage and included areas directly administered by the United Kingdom, which were collectively called British India, and areas ruled by indigenous rulers, but under B This system of... > [@](#): > > The entrepreneur Jamsetji Tata (1839–1904) began his industrial career in 1877 with the Central India Spinning, Weaving, and Manufacturing Company in Bombay. While other Indian mills produced cheap coarse yarn (and later cloth) using local short-staple cotton and cheap machinery imported from Britain, Tata did much better by importing expensive longer-stapled cotton from Egypt and buying more complex ring-spindle machinery from the United States to spin finer yarn that could compete with imports from Britain.[57] > > In the 1890s, he launched plans to move into heavy industry using Indian funding. **The Raj did not provide capital, but, aware of Britain’s declining position against the U.S. and Germany in the steel industry, it wanted steel mills in India. It promised to purchase any surplus steel Tata could not otherwise sell.[58] The Tata Iron and Steel Company (TISCO), now headed by his son Dorabji Tata (1859–1932), opened its plant at Jamshedpur in Bihar in 1908. It used American technology, not British[59]** and became the leading iron and steel producer in India, with 120,000 employees in 1945. TISCO became India’s proud symbol of technical skill, managerial competence, entrepreneurial flair, and high pay for industrial workers.[60] The Tata family, like most of India’s big businessmen, were Indian nationalists but did not trust the Congress because it seemed too aggressively hostile to the Raj, too socialist, and too supportive of trade unions.[61] ---
**Author:** ![bldysabba](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ecccb3/32.png) [@bldysabba](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bldysabba)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2014, 4:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/former-british-colonies-why-are-some-so-much-more-successful-than-others/682657/35 "2014-03-08T04:03:01Z")
> [@Ryan\_Liam](#): > > India wasn’t a nation before the British came, it was a loose affiliation of ethnic identities. The India you live in, which is where I presume you are from, was shaped by British practices of law and economics, education and ideology, it was not disastrous. I’m not contesting that India was affected by British rule. I’m contesting the idea that India and/or Indian people were somehow better off because of British rule, or that British rule was some sort of benign > [@](#): > > I’m aware of the Kohinoor Diamond, and I’m aware that it was acquired from one _empire in India_ (Sikh empire) and passed onto another empire. Thing is, what did the Persians leave in their wake other than destruction? I’ll assume you’ll say the same thing about the British, but that’s an inaccurate statement. The Persians also came, attacked and left. Sure they caused damage through that, but that damage was ephemeral. The British introduced policies and institutions that are affecting outcomes in India to this very day. Look up the zamindari system and Bannerjee and Iyer’s paper on it. > [@](#): > > A British civil servant helped found the Indian National Congress. > > [Allan Octavian Hume - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allan_Octavian_Hume) And read the fucking article, and you’ll see why he did it, and how he was treated by the British government! Bold mine. > [@](#): > > In 1861, he objected to the concentration of police and judicial functions in the hands of the police superintendent. In March 1861, he took a medical leave due to a breakdown from overwork and departed for Britain. Before leaving, he condemned the \*\*flogging and punitive measures initiated by the provincial government as ‘barbarous … torture’. \*\*He was allowed to return to Etawah only after apologizing for the tone of his criticism. He criticized the administration of Lord Lytton (before 1879) which according to him **cared little for the welfare and aspiration of the people of India**. **Lord Lytton’s foreign policy according to Hume had led to the waste of “millions and millions of Indian money”.** [6] Hume was **critical of the land revenue policy and suggested that it was the cause of poverty in India.** His superiors were irritated and attempted to restrict his powers and this led him to publish a book on Agricultural Reform in India in 1879.[3][12] > **In 1879 he went against the authorities and finally resigned in 1882.** [4] The Government of Lord Lytton dismissed him from his position in the Secretariat. No clear reason was given except that it “was based entirely on the consideration of what was most desirable in the interests of the public service”. The press declared that his main wrongdoing was that he was too honest and too independent. The Pioneer wrote that it was “the grossest jobbery ever perpetrated” ; the Indian Daily News wrote that it was a “great wrong” while The Statesman said that “undoubtedly he has been treated shamefully and cruelly.” The Englishman in an article dated 27 June 1879, commenting on the event stated, “There is no security or safety now for officers in Government employment.”[13] > In spite of the humiliation of demotion, he did not resign from service and it has been suggested that this was because he needed his salary to support the publication of the “The Game Birds of India” that he was working on.[9] Hume retired from the civil service in 1882. In 1883 he wrote an open letter to the graduates of Calcutta University, calling upon them to form their own national political movement. This led in 1885 to the first session of the Indian National Congress held in Bombay.[14] In 1887 he wrote to the Public Commission of India stating — I look upon myself as a Native of India Who do you think is representative of the ‘British’? The government that this man was criticising and that demoted and dismissed him from service, or the one conscientious objector who thought of himself as Indian? > [@](#): > > I’ll agree and say it isn’t, however, you cannot ignore the situation India was in between 1700 and 1947, around the beginning of the 18th century the Mughal empire was collapsing into petty states, the enlargement of the East India Company, the Afghan invasion and sacking of Delhi, so after the consolidation of India under British rule, it’s no surprise the results of GDP increases look so unspectacular. So according to you the British impact on India can be separated from the East India Company and the actions it took? > [@](#): > > Again, the Raj wanted India to be able to compete in manufacturing. > > [British Raj - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Raj#Industry) Again, after two centuries spent systematically undermining the Indian economy by treating it as a plantation, that it helped promote one businessman to establish one industry in the fag end of the 19th century, in which it was losing ground against other countries does NOT somehow enable you to make the claim that the the British were “supportive of industry in India”. Here’s what the paragraph above has to say, btw > [@](#): > > The Indian economy grew at about 1% per year from 1880 to 1920, and the population also grew at 1%.[53] The result was, on average, no long-term change in per capita income levels, though cost of living had grown higher. Agriculture was still dominant, with most peasants at the subsistence level. Extensive irrigation systems were built, providing an impetus for switching to cash crops for export and for raw materials for Indian industry, especially jute, cotton, sugarcane, coffee and tea.[54] **India’s global share of GDP fell drastically from above 20% to less than 5% in the colonial period** ---
**Author:** ![bldysabba](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ecccb3/32.png) [@bldysabba](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bldysabba)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2014, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/former-british-colonies-why-are-some-so-much-more-successful-than-others/682657/36 "2014-03-08T17:00:55Z")
Here’s a passage from a paper “De-industrialisation of India reconsidered” published in 1975 by respected economist R. Chattopadhyay(he regularly co authors with MIT economist Esther Duflo), bold mine > [@](#): > > In this article we have discussed the work of Daniel Thorner and J Krishna- > murthy regarding the de-industrialisation in India during the early years of this century… On the basis of our find-ings we observe that the \*\* process of de-industrialisation did continue even upto 1931\*\*…We have evidence from the study of a number of econo-mists on national income accounting that the net national product or the national income of India did not increase in the period. Evidence may also be reproduc-ed to show that the real wage of the > Indian workers did not increase in the same period. These facts together with the evidence of a -declining working fame and a declining industrial wor-king force (in the relative sense from our estimates but also in the absolute sense from Kalra’s estimates) lead us to conclude that personalities like William Digby or Romesh Dutt were **perfectly justified in holding the British responsible for the economic plight of the Indian people. We may safely argue that the Indian economy even in the early quarter of this century was characterised by a stagnant(if not declining) agriculture and service sector and a declining manufacturing sector with an increasing population and hence declining economic activity. This perhaps also means that the degree of unemployment was ever increasing.** ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2014, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/former-british-colonies-why-are-some-so-much-more-successful-than-others/682657/37 "2014-03-08T20:01:36Z")
> [@bldysabba](#): > > And in pre-Independence India, The Indian National Congress, which was a large, pan-India organisation, was a quasi-democratic body that fought for independence and after independence ruled the country for very many years. Still does actually. I think this answer really is the response to the OP. The former British colonies which have done well are the ones which, for whatever local reasons, were led to independence by leaders and movements which were committed to some form of civil government and rule of law. Contrast Gandhi and Nehru, on the one hand, with someone like Mugabe. Relatively peaceful evolutions to self-government are more likely to be enduring, because they are based on principles which are more likely to support a peaceful civil society. That’s how colonies like Canada, Australia and New Zealand did it. Violent revolutions, especially ones where terror has been a component, have the problem of legitimising violence even after the colonial regime ends, making it more difficult to establish a civil society. Which isn’t to say that armed revolution can’t lead to a civil society, as the US shows, but it takes a special kind of leadership committed to civil rule. There’s a reason George III said that George Washington was unique. Washington’s facing down the dissident officers in the Newburgh Conspiracy, and resigning his own commission after the war, were two of the crucial steps in establishing a civil republic after the armed revolution. Gandhi’s emphasis on non-violence, which Mandela followed, were other ways to achieve a peaceful independence, that helped keep the genie of violence in the bottle. Other colonies which fought revolutions to achieve independence were not so blessed in their leadership. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2014, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/former-british-colonies-why-are-some-so-much-more-successful-than-others/682657/38 "2014-03-08T20:12:57Z")
> [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > Gandhi’s emphasis on non-violence, which Mandela followed Mandela may have been less violent than other leaders. But he definitely [did not follow Gandhi’s emphasis on non-violence](http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/opinion/the-dark-side-of-nelson-mandela/story-fni0ffxg-1226778174719). ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2014, 10:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/former-british-colonies-why-are-some-so-much-more-successful-than-others/682657/39 "2014-03-08T22:25:05Z")
Fair points - I was referring more to his actions towards the end of his period of imprisonment and after his release. His emphasis then was on a peaceful transition and on a civil, democratic society. Given his immense personal popularity, he could easily have followed the well-trod path of becoming a president for life. Instead he followed the path of orderly transitions of power, and a commitment to a constitutional, democratic structure. ---
**Author:** ![Hector\_St\_Clare](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/b5ac83/32.png) [@Hector\_St\_Clare](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hector_St_Clare)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2014, 11:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/former-british-colonies-why-are-some-so-much-more-successful-than-others/682657/40 "2014-03-08T23:03:56Z")
> [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](#): > > The answer is quite obvious as most of the “successful” colonies you mention were settler colonies such as Canada and Australia which was settled primarily by British subjects who thus had knowledge of Western science, and technology along with a tradition of education, literacy, and capitalism. In addition since they were “white” colonies they were allowed to have considerable autonomy allowing them to develop their own governing institutions. The only exception with regards to this were Hong Kong and Singapore which while not white settler colonies, did gain special attention as port city enclaves. > > Meanwhile industrialization was retarded in the non-settler colonies as the British authorities wished to use raw materials there for export to the factories of the British Isles and due to being administered by colonial officials for most of the time, they did not develop a tradition of self-gvoernment. For the most part, I’m not sure if in terms of development they’d be better off had they remained colonies although they might have been more politically stable. This is the answer, I think. Although other factors like temperate vs. tropical location might play some role. The same seems to hold true of the former Spanish colonies, incidentally. Their human development index seems to track, pretty well, the fraction of their population that derives from European settlers (i.e. the extent to which the country was a ‘settler’ colony vs. an ‘exploitation’ one). You have Argentina/Chile/Costa Rica at the top (almost entirely settler states), Mexico/Cuba/Dominican Republic a little further down (largely settler states but with a lot of indigenous or African descent), places like Peru further down (mixed but with a lower fraction of settler descent), and mostly indigenous societies like Bolivia and Guatemala are the poorest. (This isn’t really a racial thing: Peru was quite an advanced society at the time of the conquest, but it was treated as a source of labour and resources more than an area for settlement). [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/former-british-colonies-why-are-some-so-much-more-successful-than-others/682657.md?page=1)