In the later half of the 19th century, both the direct administration of India by the
British Crown and the technological change ushered in by the
industrial revolution, had the effect of closely intertwining the economies of India and Great Britain. In fact, many of the major changes in transport and communications (that are typically associated with Crown Rule of India) had already begun before the Mutiny. Since
Dalhousie had embraced the technological change then rampant in Great Britain, India too saw rapid development of all those technologies. Railways, roads, canals, and bridges were rapidly built in India and telegraph links equally rapidly established in order that raw materials, such as cotton, from India's hinterland could be transported more efficiently to ports, such as
Bombay, for subsequent export to England. Likewise, finished goods from England were transported back just as efficiently, for sale in the burgeoning Indian markets. However, unlike Britain itself, where the market risks for the infrastructure development were borne by private investors, in India it was the taxpayers—primarily farmers and farm-labourers—who endured the risks, which, in the end, amounted to £50 million. In spite of these costs, very little skilled employment was created for Indians. By 1920, with a history of 60 years of its construction, only 10 percent of the "superior posts" in the railways were held by Indians. Consequently, many small farmers, dependent on the whims of those markets, lost land, animals, and equipment to money-lenders. File:George Robinson 1st Marquess of Ripon.jpg|
Lord Ripon, the Liberal Viceroy of India, who instituted the Famine Code File:Agra canal headworks1871a.jpg|The
Agra canal (c. 1873), a year away from completion. The canal was closed to navigation in 1904 to increase irrigation and aid in famine-prevention. File:India railways1909a.jpg|Railway map of India in 1909. Railway construction in India had begun in 1853. File:Victoriaterminus1903.JPG|A 1903 stereographic image of
Victoria Terminus,
Bombay, by Underwood and Underwood. The station was completed in 1888. In terms of the longer lasting effects and legacies of the economic impact of the British Raj, the impact predominantly stems from the irregular investment of areas of infrastructure. Simon Carey explains how the investment into Indian society was 'narrowly focused' and favoured the growth of transportation of goods and workers. Therefore, India has since seen an uneven economic development of society. For example, Acemoglu et al. (2001) identify how the inability of certain areas of rural India to cope with disease and famine best explain this uneven development of the nation. Carey also points out that a lasting impact of the British Raj is the transformation of India into an agricultural trading economy. Therefore, some areas of India, predominantly in affluent urban areas, have benefited from the legacies of the British Raj in the long term due to the transformation of Indian economic culture to a production based economy. However, the majority of Indian society has experienced a negative impact of the British Raj, especially in rural and suburban areas, due to the focus of investment into transport such as railways and canals rather than into healthcare and primary education. ==Beginnings of self-government== The first steps were taken toward self-government in British India in the late 19th century with the appointment of Indian counsellors to advise the British viceroy and the establishment of provincial councils with Indian members; the British subsequently widened participation in legislative councils with the
Indian Councils Act 1892.
Municipal Corporations and District Boards were created for local administration; they included elected Indian members The
Indian Councils Act 1909 – also known as the Morley-Minto Reforms (
John Morley was the secretary of state for India, and
Gilbert Elliot, fourth earl of Minto, was viceroy) – gave Indians limited roles in the central and provincial legislatures, known as legislative councils. Indians had previously been appointed to legislative councils, but after the reforms some were elected to them. At the centre, the majority of council members continued to be government-appointed officials, and the viceroy was in no way responsible to the legislature. At the provincial level, the elected members, together with unofficial appointees, outnumbered the appointed officials, but responsibility of the governor to the legislature was not contemplated. Morley made it clear in introducing the legislation to the
British Parliament that parliamentary self-government was not the goal of the British government. The Morley-Minto Reforms were a milestone. Step by step, the elective principle was introduced for membership in Indian legislative councils. The "electorate" was limited, however, to a small group of upper-class Indians. These elected members increasingly became an "opposition" to the "official government". The Communal electorates were later extended to other communities and made a political factor of the Indian tendency toward group identification through religion. File:John Morley, 1st Viscount Morley of Blackburn - Project Gutenberg eText 17976.jpg|
John Morley, the
Secretary of State for India from 1905 to 1910, and Gladstonian Liberal. The
Indian Councils Act 1909, also known as the
Minto-Morley Reforms allowed Indians to be elected to the Legislative Council. File:Delhidurbar pc1911.jpg|Picture post card of the Gordon Highlanders marching past
King George V and Queen Mary at the
Delhi Durbar on 12 December 1911, when the King was crowned
Emperor of India. File:Indiantroops medical ww1.jpg|Indian medical orderlies attending to wounded soldiers with the
Mesopotamian Expeditionary Force in
Mesopotamia during
World War I. ==World War I and its causes==