Karl Marx was a German philosopher, economist, and sociologist.

Utilizing On Colonialism, a book

composed of a compilation of articles written between 1850 and 1888 by Karl Marx and Friedrich
Engels, this inquiry will offer a review Marx’s writings on Britain’s colonization of India.

Marx and Engels saw India's pre-colonial history as static and the nature of Asiatic society as
unchanging. In the absence of internal mechanisms of social change, one implication of Marx and
Engels' analysis of Asiatic society was that British Colonialism had become an 'unconscious tool of
history' in bringing about "a fundamental revolution in the social state of Asia." As the facts
concerning colonialism accumulated, H.B.Davis points out Marx's enthusiasm for capitalism as a
transforming instrument cooled.

Marx explains that British East India Company emulated the Dutch East India Company, which was
created solely for pecuniary gain. As part of colonization, British-owned companies employed all of
the tools of despotism to take every possible glimmer of contribution and labor from the Indian
people.

Marx would interpret the East India Company as a prime example of capitalism's evolution, reflecting
the consolidation of trade monopolies and the victory of the bourgeoisie class over the feudal
aristocracy in the early 18th century. It claimed a monopoly of east India trade and invoked
commercial freedom to export treasure. The alliance between the Constitutional Monarchy and the
East India Company, was fuelled by corruption. To maintain its influence, the company continually
resorted to bribery, offering loans and gifts to the government whenever its monopoly faced
expiration. The Seven Years' War transformed the East India Company from a business entity into a
military and territorial force, laying the groundwork for the British Empire in the East. However,
allegations arose that the Company's territories were conquered with the assistance of British fleets
and armies and was asked to pay annual tribute to the National Exchequer. The East India Company
got into financial difficulties and, instead of paying tribute, appealed to Parliament for aid which led
to significant Charter alterations. Moreover, the English nation having simultaneously lost their
colonies in North America, the necessity arose of elsewhere regaining some great Colonial Empire.

In this context came Pitt’s Act in 1784 which directed the establishment of the Board of Control. This
marked the first time the Indian question became a ministerial issue. What is also significant here is
that the British government intervened in the East India Company's affairs as it came to resemble an
empire. Marx affirms that the Board of Control costs the Indian people large sums of money each
year; the President of the Board of Control involves India in unnecessary wars; the Directors of the
Board allocate the country to the highest bidder; and the Governor-General and his subordinates
paralyze the administration and perpetuate its abuses. Court of Directors who permeated the entire
Indian upper administration were appointed by wealthy stockholders with no other interest than the
payment of dividends from Indian revenue, with others appointed because of their class and
patronage. They were a subsidiary to the "English moneyocracy" according to Marx. Moreover, many
members of the committees had minimal experience in India. The government ruling over the vast
territories of India was an irresponsible and permanent bureaucracy.

Although the East India Company had, even as early as 1689, conceived the establishment of a
dominion in India, it is only since 1849, that the one great Anglo-Indian Empire has existed. Thus, the
British Government has been fighting, under the Company’s name, for two centuries, till at last the
natural limits of India were reached shedding light on the altered position of the Indian question in
1853.
Marx and Engels argue that colonialism led to de-industrialization, turning Asian economies into
subordinate parts of the economies of the colonial powers. The spinning wheel and handloom were
vital to Indian society, and sustained weavers and spinners. Ancient trade saw India providing Europe
with fine textiles, receiving precious metals in return. However, during the late 17th and most of the
18th century, the industrial class, not the commercial, sought parliamentary intervention to protect
British manufacturers from the importation of East Indian cotton and silk goods. Moreover, British
merchants attempted to contest its commercial monopoly. In Acts of 1773 and 1813, the Company
allowed trade to India with certain limitations. In the 1833 Charter renewal, all remaining restrictions
were removed, and the Company, losing its commercial nature, was barred from trading entirely.

In the 18th century, wealth from India to England came largely from direct exploitation. After
opening trade in 1813, commerce with India tripled transforming it into an importing country.
England depressed Indian cotton in European markets, saturating India with inexpensive cotton
twists, and made it a producer of raw materials for Britain leading to depopulation and the decline of
prosperous fabric towns. This created a new global division of labor, where some regions became
mainly agricultural to supply raw materials to industrialized areas. A significant part of their
productive capabilities was either destroyed or altered to serve the needs of colonial capital,
transforming them into satellite economies. By 1823, the rate of exchange dropped significantly. In
1780, India trade was a small part of total exports. By 1850, exports to India reached a substantial
portion, especially in cotton goods, crucial for British economy.

Until the mid-19th century, British interests in India were driven by moneyocracy, oligarchy, and
millocracy who collaborated in exploiting India's resources. As the industrial interest in England
became more reliant on the Indian market, conflicts arose with the moneyocracy and oligarchy. The
need to revive productive powers in India, following the destruction of its native industry, became
apparent. Importantly, the imbalance in trade emerged, with declining imports from India and
increasing exports. Further, there were setbacks such as the U.S. cotton crop failure. Frustrated by
hindrances from Indian authorities in capital applications, they now advocate for dismantling
antagonistic powers in India, dismantling its ancient governance, and eclipsing the East India
Company.

Marx highlights that England leveled the entire foundation of Indian society, without any signs of
restoration. In addition, the British destruction separated India’s old world from its ancient traditions
and past history. The British colonial government's disregard for drainage and irrigation, essential for
agriculture, led to barren lands. The British neglected public works because agriculture could not be
orchestrated on the British concept of laissez faire, or free competition. Taxes were burdensome and
oppressive indicated by mounting deficit and increasing debt. The inefficient taxes barely returned
public works utility to the people, while extravagantly provisioning to the governing class. Marx
contends that this colonial devastation depopulated India for centuries, eradicating its civilization.

Marx strongly condemned the plundering of wealth to Britain, one of the formidable obstacles to the
bourgeois development of India. He highlighted the substantial annual drain imposed by the English,
encompassing rent, dividends for impractical railways, pensions for military and civil services, and
expenses for wars. Marx emphasized that this extraction, exclusive of India's internal appropriations,
exceeded the combined income of the 60 million Indian agricultural and industrial laborers. He
described it as a severe bleeding process.

Marx had earlier welcomed that land settlement act for introducing private property in land but later
described the 'exclusive proprietary rights claimed by the Talukdars and Zamindars' as can incubus on
the real cultivators of the soil and the general improvement of the country.'28 In 1881 Marx while
criticising Sir Henry Maine, observed that "the extinction of the communal ownership of land was
only an act of English Vandalism which pushed the indigenous people not forward but backward.

Marx explains that England had to achieve two missions in India: one of destruction and one of
regeneration. The English had to level the old Asiatic society and lay the foundation of Western
society.

Marx advocates for the political unification of India by England, emphasizing the role of the electric
telegraph in strengthening this unity. He sees the British-trained Indian army as an essential
condition of Indian self-emancipation and the free press as a powerful and new agent of
reconstruction. The oversight by the British led to the emergence of a new Indian class versed in
European science and governance. The advent of steam power connected India's major ports,
breaking its isolation and stagnation, bringing it closer to Europe. Recognizing India's transformation
into a productive country as vital, Britain aimed to gift it internal communication, irrigation means,
and a railway network. Railways proved beneficial for agriculture, irrigation, and for preventing
famines. The installation of railways, initially intended by the millocracy to extract resources at lower
costs, also introduced industrial processes, contributing to modern industry. Marx emphasizes that
railways could bring new types of labor, knowledge, and dissolve hereditary divisions, fostering
progress despite potential challenges.

Marx suggests that the advantages brought by the British bourgeoisie to India won't reach the Indian
people unless the ruling class in Britain is replaced by the industrial proletariat or until India gains
enough strength to break free from English control.