Was India better under British rule than after independence? How do we understand Prabhupada’s statement
Answer Podcast
Was India better under British rule than after independence? How do we understand Srila Prabhupada’s statement?
Question:
Was India better under British rule than after independence? How do we understand statements like these by Srila Prabhupada?
Answer:
To assess whether India was “better off,” we must first define what “better” means. Are we talking about economic performance, governance, cultural identity, or spiritual growth?
1. Economic Perspective: A Tale of Plunder
From a financial point of view, the British rule was catastrophic for India. When the British arrived in the early 1700s, India accounted for approximately 22.6% of the world’s GDP—a share nearly equal to the entire GDP of Europe (around 23.3%).
By the time the British left in 1947, India’s share had dropped to just 3.8%. They called India the “brightest jewel in the British crown,” but this meant it brightened Britain while dimming India.
Even today, India’s share of global GDP is only slowly recovering and stands at roughly 4.7%, still far from pre-colonial levels.
2. Humanitarian Disasters: British Apathy and Atrocity
The British regime was not only economically exploitative but also cruelly indifferent to Indian lives. One of the most glaring examples is the Bengal famine of 1943:
- Caused and worsened by British mismanagement and malevolence, particularly due to policies like the scorched earth policy, which led to the burning of crops and confiscation of food for British troops.
- Even as people were dying by the thousands, British ships carried grains to Australia, not to India.
- Winston Churchill, then British Prime Minister, refused aid and coldly asked, “If so many people are dying, why hasn’t Gandhi died yet?”
- An estimated 3 million people died in that famine alone.
No Indian government, however incompetent or corrupt, has shown this level of systematic and deliberate negligence or cruelty towards its own people.
3. Governance and Expectations: Post-Independence Disappointment
So, in what sense could Srila Prabhupada or others say that India was better under the British?
One answer lies in the gap between expectations and reality.
After independence, there was immense hope—that India would:
- Govern itself with dignity,
- Restore its spiritual heritage,
- Offer a model of holistic progress combining material and spiritual wellbeing.
But this potential was largely squandered:
- Indian governments, especially during the early socialist era, were often inefficient, corrupt, and overly bureaucratic.
- Worse, instead of reviving Indian culture and spirituality, many promoted westernization and materialism.
- The British economically looted India, but post-independence governments often facilitated cultural and spiritual erosion.
This spiritual and cultural disconnection may have been what pained Srila Prabhupada the most, especially because India was supposed to be a spiritual leader for the world.
4. Srila Prabhupada’s Statement in Context
By the time Srila Prabhupada made such statements (around 1970s):
- India was economically stagnant, culturally disoriented, and politically chaotic.
- In comparison, British rule—though harsh—was seen by some as having maintained a certain order and discipline, which seemed missing in independent India.
- Many other Indian thinkers also echoed such views, not as praise of colonialism, but as criticism of post-independence mismanagement.
Conclusion
So, was India truly better under British rule?
Economically and humanely—certainly not.
But spiritually and culturally, the post-independence failure to live up to India’s own ideals made some, including Srila Prabhupada, express deep disappointment.
In essence:
When expectations are high but delivery is low, even freedom can feel disappointing.
That’s the spirit in which Srila Prabhupada’s statement can be understood—not as a literal endorsement of colonial rule, but as a call to reclaim India’s deeper, spiritual purpose.
Hare Krishna.