52 SOCIAL SCIENTIST Economic Development & c., op. cit., p 26. 128 Crawfurd in Economic Development, & c., p251. 12^ Ibid., p 251-2. 135 Parliamentary Papers, 1831-32, Colonies'. East India, I U P, p 251 (Q.NO. 2190). i2« Thomas Toke in Economic Development, & c.,p 171. ^'''RCDutt, Economic History of India in the Victorian Age, p 162. In 1836-37 India had exported to China goods of the value ofRs 6.72 crores and imported to the value ofRs 0.53 crore in goods and 1.24 crores in treasure, leaving a favourable balance of Rs 4'9 6 crores. The balances were smaller in the next two years (K N Chaudhuri, op. cit., table on p 49). It ought to be borne in mind that Indian customs house figures for exports at this time used to be gross under-valuations (Crawfurd, op. cit., pp 245-6). 128 B R Mitchell and Phyllis Deane, Abstract of British Historical Statistics, Cambridge 1962, p318. lat Cf. Dadabhai Naoroji, Poverty and Un-British Rule in India, 1st Indian edn. pp 188-89, for a passage written in 1880 and containing an indignant criticism of the Opium Trade as an infamous form of realization of the Indian tribute. ' ®° Deane and Cole, p 266 (table). 181 Cf. M Dobb, Studies in the Development of Capitalism, London 1947, pp 311-12. 182 R C Dutt, Economic History of India in the Victorian Age, p 359. 188 Ibid., pp 373-74. 184 LHJenks, The Migration of British Capital, to 1875, London 1963, p 207; quoted in A G L Shaw (Ed.) Great Britain and the Colonies, 1815-1865, London 1971, p 21. las Mitchell and Deane, op.cit., p 318. The excess in value of Indian exports over imports in trade with all countries in 1871 was almost the same, viz. ^ 17.6 million (RCDutt op.cit., pp 343-44). ise The burden was increased substantially also because the guaranteed capital was so wastefully employed. According to Dadabhai Naoroji (Poverty and Un-British Rule in India, p 121; also p 31), the annual drain of wealth from India to Britain increased from £ 8.7 million during 1855-59 to £ 31 million during 1870-72. While Naoroji certainly stood on the right side of the barricades, the principles on which he based his calculations are not above criticism (cf. Bipan Chandra, Rise and Growth of Econo" mic Nationalism in India, New Delhi 1966, pp 645-48). The large increase in the annual drain exhibited in Naoroji*s figures is partly to be explained by the exceptional capital-flow to India during the late 1850s and early 1860s, which reduced the excess of Indian exports over imports during that period, and so concealed the real size of the Indian tribute. 187 Sec tables in R C Dutt, op. cit., pp 345, 530. IBS These calculations have been made from the statistical tables given in Mitchell & Dcanc, pp 283, 324-5. 18* Based on tables of imports into India in R C Dutt, op.cit., pp 161, 345, and tables of British exports in Mitchell & Deane, 303-4. It would have been better to take both sets of figures from British trade statistics. But the result is unlikely to be very different. M Desai estimates the share of India (in Britain's total textile export) to have been 15% during 1821-30 and 30% during 1871-80 (IESHR VIII, 4, p 339;. 140 The classic account is in R C Dutt, op.cit., pp 401-16, 537-44. 141 Of a total of£ 365.3 million of British capital invested in India by 1909-10, government debt accounted for ^ 182.4 million, railways and other transport for f, 141.5 million and plantations for 24.2 million. Investments in electricity and power, &c., minei'als and oil, and commerce and industry, all together, amounted to no more than £ 12.7 million. (Sir George Paish's estimate, adapted and cited by Arun Bose in V B Singh (Ed.) Economic History of India, 1857-1956, p 494). 1^ Desai in IESHR VIII, 4, p 351 (table). 148 Amiya K Bagchi, Private Investment in India, 1900-1939, Cambridge 1972, p 226 (table.)