Economic Outcomes from Contrasting Colonial Strategies by the East India Company and British Raj at an Inter-Regional Level Between 1757-1947

我预期的(总体)研究重点领域：关于英国在国家层面上干预印度的经济影响的文献很多，但地区间的差异，特别是涉及西部部落地区和俾路支省的文献相对较少。一方面，东印度公司建立了马德拉斯、孟买和加尔各答等港口城市，这里的商业机会吸引了许多印度人(特别是商人和银行家)的移民。最终，学院和大学等机构在那里建立起来，使英语成为该地区的通用语言，培养出高技能的医生、公务员和律师。然后，英国王朝扩大了这些印度商人进入海外市场的机会，通过这三个港口的贸易量在1863-1913年间增加了五倍。根据斯蒂芬·布罗德伯里教授的研究，其他地区，如联合省、古吉拉特省和旁遮普省，经历了巨大的农业发展，这些地区的种植面积在1600年至1910年间增加了2.11倍。相比之下，英属印度西部的部落地区主要经历了英国的军事侵略，到1947年，这些部落地区除了英国人专用的以外，没有学校、医院、铁路或其他基础设施。事实上，据报道，1936年瓦济里斯坦地区驻扎的军队比整个次大陆的任何其他地方都多。比哈尔邦等其他地区在19世纪经历了严重的经济去工业化。俾路支省和部落地区被赋予了很大的自治权，尽管没有任何经济发展或机构建设的计划。这一观点得到了Acemoglu、Johnson和Robinson教授的支持，他们认为，不太可能在特定地区定居的殖民者(可能是因为面临更高的死亡率，就像英国人在部落地区和俾路支省面临的那样)，更有可能在那里建立采掘型国家。然后，这些采掘国决定了该地区机构的质量和随后的经济表现。我想用英国和印度地区的军事死亡率数据作为机构的替代指标，调查英属印度地区的异质性，然后将其与这些地区目前的经济表现进行比较，以评估阿西莫格鲁等人的S假说。此外，部落地区和俾路支省主要由Mohmand、Shinwari、Achekzai和Kakar等普什图族部落组成，这些部落在19世纪末在阿富汗和英属印度之间不由自主地与他们的部落同胞分离。我想将这些居住在俾路支省和部落地区的部落的现代经济表现与他们生活在杜拉尼和巴拉克扎伊帝国时期的阿富汗同类部落人民进行比较，这些部落经历了英国殖民统治的遗产。然后，这种比较有望被用作对英国殖民统治的整体长期经济影响的稳健性检查。通过关注殖民战略的地区间差异对经济的影响，并涵盖部落地区和俾路支省等英属印第安人地区，我希望填补学术话语中的一个空白。我能说一口流利的普什图语，能听懂达里语和乌尔都语，所以我想从非欧洲的角度，利用这些语言的一手和二手资料，为我的研究和更广泛的学术论述做出贡献。

My anticipated (general) area of research focus: Literature around the economic impact of British interference in India at a national level is abundant, however inter-regional variations, especially covering the western Tribal Areas and Balochistan have been relatively sparsely covered. On the one hand, the East India Company established the port cities of Madras, Bombay and Calcutta with the commercial opportunities here attracting the migration of many Indians (especially merchants and bankers). Eventually, institutions such as colleges and universities were established there making English language the lingua franca of the region, producing highly skilled doctors, civil servants and lawyers. The British Raj then expanded the access of these Indian merchants to overseas markets and the volume of trade through these three ports increased fivefold between 1863-1913. Other regions such as the United Provinces, Gujrat and Punjab experienced vast agricultural development with cultivated acreage across these regions increasing by a factor of 2.11 between 1600 and 1910, according to research by Professor Stephen Broadberry. In contrast, the Tribal Areas of western British India mainly experienced British military aggression and by 1947, there were no schools, hospitals, railways or other infrastructure within these Tribal Areas, except for those used exclusively by the British. In fact, the Waziristan region is reported to have had more troops stationed there in 1936 than anywhere else in the entire subcontinent. Other regions such as Bihar witnessed significant economic deindustrialisation in the 19th century. Balochistan and the Tribal Areas were given significant autonomy, although without any plans for economic development or institution building. This view is supported by Professors Acemoglu, Johnson and Robinson who argue that colonisers less likely to settle in a specific region (possibly because of facing higher mortality like the British faced in the Tribal Areas and Balochistan), were more likely to establish extractive states there. These extractive states then determine the quality of institutions and the subsequent economic performance of the region. I would like to use regional British and Indian military mortality figures as a proxy for institutions, investigating heterogeneity across British Indian regions and then comparing it to the economic performances of these regions today to evaluate Acemoglu et al.'s hypothesis. Moreover, the Tribal Areas and Balochistan mainly consist of the Pashtun tribes of Mohmand, Shinwari, Achekzai and Kakar amongst many others, who were involuntarily separated from their fellow tribespeople between Afghanistan and British India in the late 19th century. I would like to compare the modern economic performances of these tribes settled in Balochistan and the Tribal Areas who have experienced the legacy of British colonial rule with their fellow identical tribespeople in Afghanistan who lived under the Durrani and Barakzai empires. This comparison can then hopefully be used as a robustness check of the overall long-term economic impact of the British colonial rule. By focusing on the economic impact of inter-regional variations of colonial strategies and covering the Tribal Areas and Balochistan amongst other British Indian regions, I will hopefully be filling up a gap within the academic discourse. Being natively fluent in Pashto and understanding Dari and Urdu, I would like to use primary and secondary sources in these languages to contribute to my research and to the wider academic discourse, from a non-European perspective.