Changes

Although American historians have always paid attention to the negative causes of the revolt by which the 13 colonies broke away from the Empire, in the early 20th century the "Imperial School," including [[Herbert L. Osgood]], [[George Louis Beer]], [[Charles M. Andrews]] and [[Lawrence Gipson]] took a highly favorable view of the benefits achieved by the economic integration of the Empire.<ref>Ian Tyrrell, "Making Nations/Making States: American Historians in the Context of Empire," ''Journal of American History,'' Vol. 86, No. 3, (Dec., 1999), pp. 1015-1044 [http://www.jstor.org/stable/2568604 in JSTOR]</ref> For a good sample of the school see George Louis Beer, ''The Old Colonial System, 1660-1754'' (1913) [https://books.google.com/books?id=2KkJAAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=inauthor:george+inauthor:beer&lr=&num=30&as_brr=0 full text online].

Although American historians have always paid attention to the negative causes of the revolt by which the 13 colonies broke away from the Empire, in the early 20th century the "Imperial School," including [[Herbert L. Osgood]], [[George Louis Beer]], [[Charles M. Andrews]] and [[Lawrence Gipson]] took a highly favorable view of the benefits achieved by the economic integration of the Empire.<ref>Ian Tyrrell, "Making Nations/Making States: American Historians in the Context of Empire," ''Journal of American History,'' Vol. 86, No. 3, (Dec., 1999), pp. 1015-1044 [http://www.jstor.org/stable/2568604 in JSTOR]</ref> For a good sample of the school see George Louis Beer, ''The Old Colonial System, 1660-1754'' (1913) [https://books.google.com/books?id=2KkJAAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=inauthor:george+inauthor:beer&lr=&num=30&as_brr=0 full text online].

===India===

===India===

A raging debate continues regarding the economic impact of British imperialism on India. The issue was raised by conservative leader [[Edmund Burke]] who in the 1780s vehemently attacked the East India Company, claiming that Warren Hastings and other top officials had ruined the Indian economy and society. Indian historian Rajat Kanta Ray (1998) continues this attack, saying the new economy brought by the British in the 18th century was a form of "plunder" and a catastrophe for the traditional economy of Mughal India. Ray accuses the British of depleting the food and money stocks and imposing high taxes that helped cause the terrible famine of 1770, which killed a third of the people of Bengal.<ref>Rajat Kanta Ray, "Indian Society and the Establishment of British Supremacy, 1765-1818," in ''The Oxford History of the British Empire: vol. 2, The Eighteenth Century" ed. by P. J. Marshall, (1998), pp 508-29</ref>  

A raging debate continues regarding the economic impact of British imperialism on India. The issue was raised by conservative leader [[Edmund Burke]] who in the 1780s vehemently attacked the East India Company, claiming that Warren Hastings and other top officials had ruined the Indian economy and society. Indian historian Rajat Kanta Ray (1998) continues this attack, saying the new economy brought by the British in the 18th century was a form of "plunder" and a catastrophe for the traditional economy of [[India]]. Ray accuses the British of depleting the food and money stocks and imposing high taxes that helped cause the terrible famine of 1770, which killed a third of the people of Bengal.<ref>Rajat Kanta Ray, "Indian Society and the Establishment of British Supremacy, 1765-1818," in ''The Oxford History of the British Empire: vol. 2, The Eighteenth Century" ed. by P. J. Marshall, (1998), pp 508-29</ref>  

On the other hand, P. J. Marshall shows that recent scholarship has reinterpreted the received view that the prosperity of the formerly benign Mughal rule gave way to poverty, and anarchy. Marshall argues the British takeover did not make any sharp break with the past. British control was delegated largely through regional Mughal rulers and was sustained by a generally prosperous economy for the rest of the 18th century. Marshall notes the British went into partnership with Indian bankers and raised revenue through local tax administrators, and kept the old Mughal rates of taxation.<ref>Professor Ray agrees that the East India Company inherited an onerous taxation system that took one-third of the produce of Indian cultivators.</ref> Instead of the Indian nationalist account of the British as alien aggressors, seizing power by brute force and impoverishing all of India, Marshall presents the interpretation, supported by many scholars in both India and the West, in which the British were not in full control but instead were players in what was primarily an Indian play and in which their rise to power depended upon excellent cooperation with Indian elites. Marshall admits that much of his interpretation is still rejected by many historians working in India today, who prefer to bash the British.<ref>P.J. Marshall, "The British in Asia: Trade to Dominion, 1700-1765," in ''The Oxford History of the British Empire: vol. 2, The Eighteenth Century" ed. by P. J. Marshall, (1998), pp 487-507</ref>

On the other hand, P. J. Marshall shows that recent scholarship has reinterpreted the received view that the prosperity of the formerly benign Mughal rule gave way to poverty, and anarchy. Marshall argues the British takeover did not make any sharp break with the past. British control was delegated largely through regional Mughal rulers and was sustained by a generally prosperous economy for the rest of the 18th century. Marshall notes the British went into partnership with Indian bankers and raised revenue through local tax administrators, and kept the old Mughal rates of taxation.<ref>Professor Ray agrees that the East India Company inherited an onerous taxation system that took one-third of the produce of Indian cultivators.</ref> Instead of the Indian nationalist account of the British as alien aggressors, seizing power by brute force and impoverishing all of India, Marshall presents the interpretation, supported by many scholars in both India and the West, in which the British were not in full control but instead were players in what was primarily an Indian play and in which their rise to power depended upon excellent cooperation with Indian elites. Marshall admits that much of his interpretation is still rejected by many historians working in India today, who prefer to bash the British.<ref>P.J. Marshall, "The British in Asia: Trade to Dominion, 1700-1765," in ''The Oxford History of the British Empire: vol. 2, The Eighteenth Century" ed. by P. J. Marshall, (1998), pp 487-507</ref>