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（一般）研究重点领域：围绕英国干涉印度的经济影响在国家层面上的文献是丰富的，但区域间的变化，特别是覆盖西部部落地区和俾路支省已经相对稀疏覆盖。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，诸如学院和大学之类的机构在那里建立起来，使英语成为该地区的通用弗兰卡，培养出高技能的医生、公务员和律师。英国统治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年至1913年期间增加了五倍。其他地区，如联合省，古吉拉特邦和旁遮普经历了巨大的农业发展，根据斯蒂芬·布罗德伯里教授的研究，1600年至1910年期间，这些地区的耕地面积增加了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，这些部落地区内没有学校，医院，铁路或其他基础设施，除了英国专用的那些。事实上，据报道，1936年驻扎在瓦济里斯坦地区的军队比整个次大陆的任何其他地方都多。其他地区，如比哈尔邦，在世纪经历了严重的经济去工业化。俾路支省和部落地区获得了很大的自治权，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、约翰逊和罗宾逊教授的支持，他们认为，不太可能在特定地区定居的殖民者（可能是因为面临着像英国人在部落地区和俾路支省那样的高死亡率）更有可能在那里建立掠夺性国家。然后，这些采掘国家决定了该地区的制度质量和随后的经济表现。我想使用区域英国和印度的军事死亡率数字作为代理机构，调查英属印度地区的异质性，然后将其与这些地区今天的经济表现进行比较，以评估Acemoglu等人。的假说。此外，部落地区和俾路支省主要由莫赫曼德、辛瓦里、阿切克扎伊和卡卡尔等普什图部落组成，这些部落在世纪末在阿富汗和英属印度之间被迫与其他部落分离。我想比较一下定居在俾路支省和部落地区的这些部落的现代经济表现，他们经历了英国殖民统治的遗产，与他们在阿富汗生活在Durrani和Barakzai帝国下的同胞相同的部落人民。这样的比较，可望用作全面检视英国殖民统治对香港经济的长远影响。通过关注殖民战略的区域间变化的经济影响，并涵盖部落地区和俾路支省等英属印度地区，我希望能填补学术话语中的空白。作为母语流利的普什图语和理解达里语和乌尔都语，我想使用这些语言的主要和次要来源，以促进我的研究和更广泛的学术话语，从非欧洲的角度。

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.