British rule in India probably was in the reformist van of colonialregimes, but by Independence relatively few among the Indian populacehad benefited notably from Western ‘modernization’. Althoughpraised lavishly by a past generation of English historians for equippingIndia for ‘rapid progress’ under ‘the rule of law’,British policies hardly represented exemplary social engineering or‘transformed’ the prosperity, health, well being, education orcareer opportunities of most Indians. Early in its sway the British rajconceived of implanting on the subcontinent modes of development responsible for England's rapid progress and prosperity and the advance of its peoples. Why, then, was the success not greater of Western programs, and why did policies of economic development leave at mid-twentieth century a majority of Indians living below poverty levels drawn close to subsistence? Was Western ‘reformism’ materially exploitative, or promising but checked by theregime's major political disturbance, the ‘Mutiny’ or Revolt of1857, or were British policies culturally suppressive, or is more complexanalysis needed to comprehend the Western impact?