To be incorporated in the market or not...

Kavya
Historian B.R. Tomlinson outlined the major economic debates regarding South Asia. He pointed out that while development economics talk much about encouraging development, there has been no clear understanding of why development does not occur (p10). There have been many explanations for why it has not occurred. Some who chose to engage in the debate include the South Asian economists who have a nationalist bent in their research. The “imperial apologists,” the supposed opposite side of the debate, do not take the drain theory as seriously as the South Asian economists. (Nationalist Dadabhai Naoroji is one early example of this endeavor.) They make their case and show economic continuity in the case studies of several South Asian regions before and after colonialism. Tomlinson also points to the international changes in gold and silver prices to explain some of the changes in the 1920s. Certain South Asian economists have cited the worldwide depreciation of silver bullion in this ...
显示全文
Historian B.R. Tomlinson outlined the major economic debates regarding South Asia. He pointed out that while development economics talk much about encouraging development, there has been no clear understanding of why development does not occur (p10). There have been many explanations for why it has not occurred. Some who chose to engage in the debate include the South Asian economists who have a nationalist bent in their research. The “imperial apologists,” the supposed opposite side of the debate, do not take the drain theory as seriously as the South Asian economists. (Nationalist Dadabhai Naoroji is one early example of this endeavor.) They make their case and show economic continuity in the case studies of several South Asian regions before and after colonialism. Tomlinson also points to the international changes in gold and silver prices to explain some of the changes in the 1920s. Certain South Asian economists have cited the worldwide depreciation of silver bullion in this time, which was designated by the Government of India for the currency of foreign trade, to prove colonial drain.
Tomlinson argued that moneylenders (mahajans) were not the sole reason for the agricultural problems experienced in certain areas. The colonial revenue system was set up unrealistically for certain zamindars and the peasants: The groups that held the rights to collect revenue were not involve themselves intimately with the production process. The peasants, in order to meet the revenue demands, borrowed from moneylenders. The moneylenders were very noticeable since most were Rajasthani Marwari outsiders. They were attacked in the 1857 revolt and the account books were publicly destroyed. (Interestingly, the economic conditions of the villages, i.e., whether they were linked to the outside economy in terms of credit, was an indicator of their political involvement in 1857: “communities involved most extensively in the revolt were led by village brotherhoods that had succeeded in maintaining their independence from outside incursions [on land titles through moneylending].” P49) Government policy also targeted moneylenders. Compared to a complete overhaul of the revenue system, it was easier to limit money-lending activity.
Tomlinson acknowledged that there is a certain type of market system and indigenous consumption power in place in the twentieth century. Certain peasants also made profit in the 1880s till 1920s, benefiting from the global market. But he is cautious to suggest that this would have led to more positive developmentalist outcomes without colonial intervention. To answer to what extent has India decolonized economically and to what extent should we decolonize South Asia’s economy or even the field of development economics would require much more reading and work. But Tomlinson’s book is a good start.
0
0

查看更多豆瓣高分好书

回应(0)

添加回应

了解更多图书信息

值得一读

    豆瓣
    我们的精神角落
    免费下载 iOS / Android 版客户端
    App 内打开