British India: Railways and Democracy

Many say the railways were a positive product of British rule of India. Shashi Tharoor’s An Era of Darkness looks into this. In 1843, Governor General Lord Hardinge was at least honest when he said that the railways would be beneficial for the “commerce, government and military control of the country”.

 

Look at how it was constructed. (1) The British government guaranteed 5% return on bonds (very high for that time) used to raise money to build the railways. And why not? After all, it was taxes on India that would be used to pay the interest, not British taxpayer money. (2) This created a perverse incentive for British companies laying the tracks in India. That 5% interest was on the principal, so the more money the company claimed it needed, the higher the interest payment. Thus, there was no incentive to optimize or reduce costs. The opposite was the case. Each mile in India thus cost £ 18,000. For comparison, a mile at the same time was costing just £ 2,000 in the US.

“It was a splendid racket for everyone, apart from the Indian taxpayer.”

(3) All the items – steel rails, engines, coaches, machinery and plant – came from Britain. All overpriced, of course.

 

In any case, the railways were meant for and used to transport goods and resources out/from India. It was never meant for people, except in times when Britain had a bad economic phase and usage of the railways fell. At such times, people travel was encouraged because, of course, they paid for it. Over time, as full time use of railways for people was allowed, it charged high rates for pathetic third class compartments. Freight rates were kept as low as possible – the goal always was to take goods from India, to maximize British loot.

 

Employees in the railways were almost all British, until very late. Not only that, they were paid at British levels. In 1878, locals managed to design their own locomotives. In response, the British passed a law making it illegal for them to manufacture them.

 

During World War I, several Indian railway lines were dismantled and transported to help the British war effort in Mesopotamia. So much for railways being for the good of India.

~~

 

Many credit the British for why we are a democracy. At the beginning, the British opposed the creation of the Indian National Congress (INC). Even later, they never gave much power to any of the elected representatives from India. Since the aim was always to govern for Britain’s benefit, they ensured power lay with the Viceroy and the government of Britain. Elected representatives had little decision making power, except in areas Britian didn’t care for e.g. education and health. In any case, Britain could override anything that came from the Indians anyway.

 

When it suited them, the British would declare anyone and any party of their choosing as the “representatives” of different groups. Thus, long before the Muslim League won enough seats from the Muslim majority provinces, the British had already elevated Jinnah and the Muslim League as the representatives of Muslims across India. British “democracy” at work.

 

Only 1 in 250 Indians could vote during British rule. Right from independence, it was Nehru and the framers of the Indian constitution who gave all Indians the right the vote.

 

Besides, says Tharoor, if the British did instil democracy, how come the other parts of British India, namely Pakistan and Bangladesh, have been under military rule for so many chunks of their history?

“It is a bit rich… for the British to suppress, exploit, imprison, torture and maim a people for 200 years and then celebrate the fact that they are a democracy at the end of it.”