In July 1806, the British House of Commons debated the “India Budget,” a ledger that, from an Indian perspective, reflected extraction rather than governance. With sparse attendance, the discussions revealed a colonial system indifferent to the millions whose wealth and livelihoods funded it.

Lord Morpeth’s presentation exposed a deficit of 2,655,957 pounds for 1804–05, while total India Debt had soared from 7 million pounds in 1793 to nearly 40 million by 1806. These figures, debated as abstract numbers in London, were borne by Indian peasants, artisans, and zamindars. Loans taken at nominal 8% interest carried real rates of 12–14%, draining local economies to pay for British armies, officials’ salaries, and administrative costs.

Parliamentary anxiety centered not on India’s welfare but on the stability of imperial finances. Sparse attendance during key debates underscored the disregard for Indian interests. The financial crisis was not accidental; it was the cost of conquest. Wars against Scindia, Bhonsla, and Holkar, and the imposition of subsidiary treaties, generated debt that financed British expansion and sovereignty over Indian lands.

Proposed solutions, such as transferring debt to Europe, prioritized the Company’s survival over India’s economic well-being. The debates exposed colonial hypocrisy: India’s wealth was treated as a prize to be divided among imperial actors, while the subjugated population remained invisible.

The 1806 India Budget debate stands as a stark historical lesson. Beyond numbers and deficits, it documents the human cost of imperialism, the neglect of Indian voices, and the enduring impact of financial and political exploitation under colonial rule.