In a debate someone argues that India was poor when the British left, so they must have been…
In a debate someone argues that India was poor when the British left, so they must have been working to lift India out of poverty. Rukmini finds the argument weak. Where is it weak?
Who do you think is right? Pick one.
The answer: A result does not reveal an intention
Why
There is one honest thing in the argument — India was indeed poor in 1947, and that is not in dispute. Everything after it goes wrong. The speaker takes a RESULT and reads a PURPOSE out of it backwards, which would let you prove almost anything: a shop that lost money must have been trying to lose money. Worse, the fact points the other way. If the aim had been to end poverty, the result is a failure, not evidence of the aim. To judge purpose you look at what was decided and who gained: revenue demands that continued through famine, Indian handloom weaving undercut while raw cotton was shipped out, and the profits sent to Britain. Test: ask what would have been done differently by someone actually trying to make India prosperous, then check the record against it. Rukmini is right: outcomes and intentions are separate questions, and each needs its own evidence.
On Socho, you explain your thinking out loud and a coach asks about YOUR reasoning — one question a day, free, in Hindi, Hinglish or English.
Try a question on Socho →More disagreements in The Colonial Era in India