question arises from Drain Theory
- any modernization was an unintended by product
- connected india interally (roads, railways) and to the world economy
- but railways for faster mvmt of army
- connected indian markets / raw materials to ports, not to indian manufacturers
- very limited transfer of tech from brit to india
- goal was business for British Railways Companies
- as 5% guaranteed return on FDI
- companies got land free with 99yr lease, could sell it to GoI at 5% interest rate
- thus, wasteful construction (from indian taxpayer’s money)
- byproduct: 78% (of undivided) indian covered by roads by 1947. Promoted stronger interregional bonds 😄
- no transportation connection for indian domestic trade
- thus indian agri produce not utilized properly for india
- many famines during british era
- Canals became role models for Asia + said to have helped food security
- but by 1947, only 25% cultivated area under public irrigation
- Canals not build in permanent settlement areas (these areas had high water charges)
- built only in Mahalwari, Ryotwari areas where high yield = better revenue
- Bengal was facing famine since very early due to this
- drains paid for development eg attracted FDI
- drain equals only 2% of indian exports value in early 1900s
- no GDP boost, uneven regional growth (link modern day “BIMARU” states) and low investments in agri, health, edu
- this 2% was a surplus that if invested in india, would have led to the GDP growth