British Colonialism and the Push Towards Indian Independence

In 1853 Karl Marx wrote, "'England has to fulfil a double mission in India: one destructive, the other regenerative.' This double mission consisted in Ð''the annihilation of the old Asiatic society' and Ð''the laying of the material foundations of a Western society in Asia,'" (Kruger 40). Though some of the world thought that Britain was just spreading western ideals, Marx realized the exploitation that would occur under the British colonization of India. Under colonialism, Britain used economic, political and cultural exploitation to serve the interests of the crown. These imperialistic functions, however, would lead to the rise of nationalist ideology and the road to independence in India.

A huge factor in the rise of anti-colonial India was the economic exploitation of Indian in the interest of the British Empire. Although colonialism sometimes brings economic gain to subordinate countries, it is usually short-lived and it the case of India it primarily benefited Britain. "The traditional village system in India rested primarily on the combination of agriculture and the [domestic] crafts," (Kruger, 41). With the advent of Industrial Revolution in England, the expanding textile industries needed raw materials and markets for their finished goods, so India was robbed of its wealth for the production and exportation of cotton and other raw materials. Not only did Britain drain India of its raw materials, but also annihilated Indian handicraft industries by exposing them the competition of cheap machine products coming from Britain, in no way could there be an accumulation of capital for India. The de-industrialization of India into an agricultural economy left millions jobless and eventually accounted for widespread famines and increasing poverty in the 19th century.

Though Britain was to fulfill a mission of creating a stable India, she developed no economic infrastructure in India. "There took place no emergence and development of the capitalism of manufacturing," (Kruger 41). The British control over the decisive sectors of the economy inhibited Indian capitalist growth. Britain used its own industrial capitalism, but in order to transform India into a market for raw materials, railroads and irrigation plants had to be constructed. The flow of British capital in the form of investments, secured Britain in the most powerful mode of colonial exploitation Ð'- finance capitalism. Loans on behalf of the Indian government and foreign business investment only deepened the exploitation of India's economic system.

The misuse of the Indian economic system along with the British tax system played a key role in the movement towards independence in colonized India. India realized the mishandling of its economic structure and began lashing out against Britain's imperialist rule. Mohandes Gandhi

, leader of the Indian National Congress, preached to the Indian people to reject the "machine civilization" of the modern world. Though India may be technologically behind, Gandhi

's teachings refused western materialism. In one of the most significant non-violent protests in history, Gandhi

led the Salt March of 1930. In protest of the British tax on salt in India, the sixty year old Gandhi

led a public walk of 240 miles from in-land to the sea to make a statement against British colonialism. This marked the height of Indian resentment to Britain's economic policies.

In order implement its economic penetration into India, Britain also implemented political control over of the country. This control was initiated by the British East India Company that monopolized the raw materials in India but also played as huge role in the political realm as well. In 1772, they took direct control of the land-revenue system by 1793 came the settlement of Bengal, "designed to encourage political allies, social stability and economic advance through the establishment of landed property rights," (Blue, Bunton, Crozier & editors 71). The so called Zamindars or tax collectors, "served the endeavours of the colonial rulers to squeeze the maximum of land rent our of the peasantry," (Kruger 43). Though Indian themselves, these Zamindars exploited the peasantry themselves by increasing rent and blaming it on the levy fixed for the colonial state. This These new, rich capitalists supported British rule, because it made them profitable.

Later, British policy and administration during the Bengal period increased the qualifications for admittance to governmental positions to keep the educated Hindu Indians from gaining what could be influential positions, seen as a threat to British colonialism. After other reforms, Lord Curzon came to power in 1898 and was determined to break the back of Indian political opposition in the form of the Bengal educated class. In 1904, he abolished the competitive examinations encouraging University education so that the higher degree served as a "passport to Government service," (Crane & Barrier 185). Curzon completed his goal with 1905 partition of Bengal. The act was "in large measure related to the desire to reduce the overall influence of the nationalist politicians," (Crane & Barrier 185).

Through these systems and others, Britain attempts to employ cultural regulations to serve the interest of the crown. Britain condemned India's cultural and spiritual "backwardness" as unsophisticated and promoted the "civilization" of Indians until they proved themselves "competent" for self-rule. Though it might seem that the railroad system could break down cultural distances between various groups it only created more of a gap between classes as separate compartments were reserved for the ruling class, separating the wealthy and educated from the ordinary class. Through the aforementioned feudal system and other policies, the British did not bring Western harmony to India, instead it created much social turmoil throughout the country. Under the Zamindar system, the peasantry lost faith in the wealthy landlords who profited under colonial rule. Referring to the new class of Zamindars, Lord Cuzon of the British rule "could write about the feudal aristocracy of Bombay in 1903: Ð''Ð'...the present landed aristocracy of this provinceÐ'... to a large degree our own creationÐ'... constitutes a powerful influence on our side," (Kruger 44). This created a tough environment for any mass movement aimed at changing the existing conditions