European imperialism was a staple of world politics for several centuries, and its implications are still heavily present today. The current political climates of North America, Africa, and South Asia are all affected by this colonialism due to the political infrastructure and in some cases, the lack thereof that was put into place during the time of European rule. It is a monumental task to completely analyze the colonial experiences of European powers, particularly Britain in South Asia, but some conclusions can certainly be drawn. With the United States being a notable exception, it can be said that nations that were rather recently European colonies have not been set up to succeed due to both economic and social variables. In the case of
…show more content…
Upon India’s independence in 1947, Prime Minister Nehru appeared to have the goal of an Indian economy that was entirely self-sufficient. This was an admirable ambition for a man charged with leading a completely new nation into the unknown territory of autonomy. However, it quickly became clear that the Indian economy was in a dire state, and would have needed severe external economic aid to achieve success. As put by Mahinder Chaudhry in Economic & Political Weekly, Nehru seemed to have a “vision of socialist self-reliance, resulting in an all but closed economy” (Chaudhry 1222). Chaudhry also asserts that from 1960 to 1990, India’s gross domestic product grew at a rate significantly lower than other Asian nations such as Thailand, Taiwan, and South Korea (Chaudhry 1222). At the time of Indian independence, the Indian government was faced with a multitude of unique challenges. Poverty and hunger continued to reign throughout the nation, and the imminent conflicts with Pakistan only led to even more instability. Clearly, this was an environment in which staunch action needed to be taken, rather than to attempt to survive solely on India’s own economic merit – a noble but ill-fated idea whose economic implications are felt in the impoverished nation of India …show more content…
This study, entitled India’s Economic Growth History: Fluctuations, Trends, Break Points and Phases found that in the half century since India broke free of British rule, little to no economic expansion or growth has occurred. Specifically, Virmani concludes that at the time of his study, just as it was when India achieved independence, the Indian economy was extremely reliant upon rainfall and other climate related variables, indicating that the Indian economy had not progressed to relying upon more modern industries. Additionally, with the exception of a few recent growth spurts, Virmani claims that there have not been any instances in which the Indian economy has grown at a rapid pace, which most healthy economies experience with some consistency over such a long period (Virmani 100 – 101). Although this is a singular study, it is certainly indicative that in the half century since India has achieved independence, it has yet to establish itself as a stable economic power despite its vast population and human capital. Undoubtedly, the difficulty that India has had economically over the last fifty years can be traced back to its time as a subject nation. This is a sign that India was not economically ready to be a self-sustaining nation in 1947. If it were, more than half a century should have been ample time for it to
Upon India’s independence in 1947, Prime Minister Nehru appeared to have the goal of an Indian economy that was entirely self-sufficient. This was an admirable ambition for a man charged with leading a completely new nation into the unknown territory of autonomy. However, it quickly became clear that the Indian economy was in a dire state, and would have needed severe external economic aid to achieve success. As put by Mahinder Chaudhry in Economic & Political Weekly, Nehru seemed to have a “vision of socialist self-reliance, resulting in an all but closed economy” (Chaudhry 1222). Chaudhry also asserts that from 1960 to 1990, India’s gross domestic product grew at a rate significantly lower than other Asian nations such as Thailand, Taiwan, and South Korea (Chaudhry 1222). At the time of Indian independence, the Indian government was faced with a multitude of unique challenges. Poverty and hunger continued to reign throughout the nation, and the imminent conflicts with Pakistan only led to even more instability. Clearly, this was an environment in which staunch action needed to be taken, rather than to attempt to survive solely on India’s own economic merit – a noble but ill-fated idea whose economic implications are felt in the impoverished nation of India …show more content…
This study, entitled India’s Economic Growth History: Fluctuations, Trends, Break Points and Phases found that in the half century since India broke free of British rule, little to no economic expansion or growth has occurred. Specifically, Virmani concludes that at the time of his study, just as it was when India achieved independence, the Indian economy was extremely reliant upon rainfall and other climate related variables, indicating that the Indian economy had not progressed to relying upon more modern industries. Additionally, with the exception of a few recent growth spurts, Virmani claims that there have not been any instances in which the Indian economy has grown at a rapid pace, which most healthy economies experience with some consistency over such a long period (Virmani 100 – 101). Although this is a singular study, it is certainly indicative that in the half century since India has achieved independence, it has yet to establish itself as a stable economic power despite its vast population and human capital. Undoubtedly, the difficulty that India has had economically over the last fifty years can be traced back to its time as a subject nation. This is a sign that India was not economically ready to be a self-sustaining nation in 1947. If it were, more than half a century should have been ample time for it to