World History: Britain in India

The last time that we looked at India Britain had managed to edge out its European competitors thanks to victory in the Seven Years' War. This post will look at British rule in India from the end of the Seven Years' War in 1765 until the start of the twentieth century - a period marked by reform, repression, power, and rebellion. Many of the policies implemented in British India were later adapted for Africa, so when we look specifically at imperialism these two posts should be read together. However, that is a post for a later date, and first we have to understand how the British rose in India.

The Rise of the Raj

'Robert Clive and Mir Jafar after the Battle of Plassey'

British rule started with a company - the East India Company (EIC) - which had arrived initially to trade. When Britain started becoming a power in India the power of the old empire, the Mughals, was waning. The rise of a new empire, the Marathas, broke Mughal hegemony over the subcontinent, and the system of 'tax-farming' - allowing individuals to collect tax for the state - caused economic issues when those tasked with collecting tax opted to keep it for themselves. Merchants, particularly on the coast, started funding opponents - one of the reasons why Britain won the 1757 Battle of Plassey so easily was that disgruntled merchants paid a Mughal general to aid the British. Following the Seven Years' War the EIC under Robert Clive was granted the diwani, right to collect tax revenues, in Bengal which the EIC used to both purchase goods, and finance the conquest of the rest of India. Historian C.A. Bayly has highlighted the importance of British nationalism thanks to the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars influenced aggressive expansion - especially under governor-general Richard Wellesley (1798-1805). Before Wellesley the EIC offered 'protection' in return for payment, but this led smaller allies to become indebted to the EIC - private British creditors were used to keep nawabs independent but in debt. Wellesley wanted direct rule instead - in 1800 the Nawab of Awadh was forced to cede all his western territories and Arcot was entirely annexed. He also resorted to direct conflict - the Second Anglo-Maratha War happened under his rule, and saw the EIC capture Delhi in 1803. Direct conquest was very expensive, so the EIC used conquest to fund conquest. Under the Marquess of Dalhousie (1848-1856) the EIC annexed subsidiary states by declaring that if a state lacked a male heir it would be annexed - Satara (1848), Jhansi (1853), Nagpur (1854), and Awadh (1856) brought in 10 million pounds. The EIC often ruled through local leaders, and this would continue under the Raj, including the remaining Mughal sultans. 'Divide-and-rule' was essential to EIC rule, and how they conquered - Indian troops, 'sepoys', and states were used to fight enemies on behalf of the British.

India's first railway in 1853

It is important to note that the EIC was a corporatocracy - a company that controlled a political system. A mixture of free market capitalism and British nationalism influenced how the company operated. Using nawabs and sepoys to fight wars of conquest was a practical and cost effective way of expanding company rule. The British were always the head of the EIC - Indians were barred from positions of power - but they relied on local elites to aid and implement their rule. High-caste Hindus, Muslims, and Sikhs made up the majority of sepoy recruits; zamindars (landlords) under Charles Cornwallis (1786-1820) were given greater control of taxation; and in 1802 Wellesley oversaw the opening of Fort William College in Calcutta (modern Kolkata) to train Indian elites to help the EIC. Early EIC reforms were done to allow profit and an end to 'despotic' rule. The 1793 Permanent Settlement Act taxed zamindars based on the value of land as it was believed to allow profit maximisation and protect ryots (tenants) from exploitation. The third largest railroad in the world, from Calcutta to Madras, was constructed to allow ease of movement, and literacy increased thanks to the creation of schools. However, they were not entirely altruistic. As already discussed education was done to create a class of allies to implement EIC rule, and ordinary Indians were often barred from using railways, it was done to allow the easy movement of the army. Furthermore, poorer Indians often did not benefit from EIC rule - from 1793 zamindars could exploit ryots more, and education and employment was for the wealthy. The EIC was a company so profit was its primary goal. Although stories of EIC officials breaking Bengali weavers's thumbs are inaccurate, the EIC did see the 'deindustrialising' of Bengal so it could not compete with British textiles. Many of India's worst famines occurred under company rule - in 1770 a famine in Bengal saw a third of the population starve. Fearful that stocks would plummet thanks to the famine the EIC rose land taxes by 10% instead of issuing famine relief. This trend would continue, not only in British India, throughout the colonial world.

Khair-un-Nissa

Moreover, India was where 'white respectability' was reborn. William Dalrymple's White Mughals (2002) shows this very well, and of all the sources which I have used for this post I would recommend it the most. Originally, the Indian-British divide was not so rigid, and it was common for EIC agents to wear Indian clothing; learn local languages; and partake in local cultural activities. Dalrymple's book looks at how British lieutenant-colonel James Kirkpatrick, a 'cocky young imperialist intending to conquer India', arrived at Hyderabad where he and Khair-un-Nissa, a young noblewoman, married. Kirkpatrick converted to Islam, learned Persian and Hindustani, and was adopted by the Nizam of Hyderabad. He was not alone - many Hyderabadi officials had monogamous relations with educated women, including Colonel James Dalrymple who married Mooti Begum, daughter of the Nawab of Masulipatam. However, by this time the EIC had started to turn against those who partook in Indian cultural practices or married Indians. When David Hare, the founder of the Hindu College in Calcutta, died he was barred from a Christian burial, and in 1786 Lord Cornwallis banned Anglo-Indians from EIC employment or travelling to Britain. Meanwhile, EIC employees were also viewed with suspicion. One could become very rich very quickly through EIC employment. There was a fear that nouveau riche would disrupt British sensibility thanks to ill-gotten gains in India - governor-general Warren Hastings, originally of old money, bought his family's historic manor in Gloucestershire (sold in 1715) and told his agent to 'give as much for it as it is worth and if you give something more for it I shall not be sorry' which was seen as flaunting wealth. The 1773 play The Nabob by Samuel Foote exemplifies the established fears: brash vulgarian Sir Matthew Mite (a caricature of Clive) where he lost what little morals he had in India, and 'imported the worst of its vices' to corrupt parliament. Corruption saw Warren Hastings impeached in 1788 (he was later acquitted, Clive having to defend himself in parliament, and in 1784 the India Act was passed partially putting the EIC under the rule of Britain.

Orientalism, and the Creation of Caste and Faith

I want to briefly discuss Edward Said's Orientalist theory, and I would also recommend reading this post about Gayatri Spivak who expanded on Said. Looking at the Middle East, Said argued that colonial powers viewed their own culture as the 'correct' culture, so, with little knowledge of the 'Orient', applied their own knowledge to the colonised world. This view of the Orient was formed as 'not only because it was discovered to be “Oriental” …but also because it could be – that is, submitted to being – made Oriental'. There are flaws in Said's theory - he only looks at high culture (like Shakespeare) and accidentally takes agency away from the colonised. Orientalist views are forcibly applied to the colonised independent. Colonial elites helped construct ideas and narratives to fit themselves which Spivak later discussed. Caste and faith were constructed in this way. Hinduism and caste predated colonial rule, but how they exist in modern forms were created thanks to colonialism. First, we shall discuss faith. Ronald Indens' Imagining India discusses this well, although he does place too much emphasis on British actions in the construction of modern Hinduism. Early-eighteenth century sources use the term 'Hindoo' to describe all Indians, regardless of faith, and overtime it evolved to mean a specific faith. Many Hindu stories exist - especially about the creation of the world - and a variety of seemingly paradoxical beliefs co-exist, these range from atheism to polytheism. Hinduism was a wide variety of spiritual beliefs, but British missionaries and officials did not understand this. Instead, they applied a Western notion of a rigid belief system onto Hinduism creating the current notion of Hinduism we have in the West. Hindu elites aided in this creation - the 1776 Gentoo Laws helped bring in separate rule for Islam, Hinduism, and Sikhism. In order to secure some form of self-rule a unified faith was needed, however, at the grassroots level Indian Hinduism continued.

Like Hinduism, caste existed before British rule. Nicholas Dirks believed that caste may have originally came about millennia ago due to attempts to legitimise kinship. Both Dirks and Indens acknowledge that caste in practice differed from theoretical caste. In theory, a broad category called Brahmans (priests) were at the top and below them were the Kshatriyas (warriors), Vaishyas (artisans, merchants, and farmers), and Sudras (labourers), and the 'untouchable' Dalits excluded entirely. In practice these categories were in constant flux and a very basic understanding of caste - in reality Kshatriyas held actual power and Brahmans had to rely on them for protection. Like with Hinduism, Britain viewed caste as a rigid and timeless institution - missionary Abbe J.A. Dubois in 1816 saw it as being essential to civilisation that 'preserve[s] priceless heritage...[so as] not lapse into a state of barbarism'. Brahmans in particularly emphasised the rigidity of caste to the British - the British could place them firmly at the top of society. Escaping heavy-handed British reforms also came through the caste system. Hook-swinging was seen by missionaries as insulting Christ's crucifixion, so Brahmans emphasised that it was a practice by 'untouchables' so they themselves would not be linked to the practice.

Reform: Altruistic or Invasive?

A group of supposed 'Thuggee' in 1894

The EIC and Raj aimed to pass various social reforms, especially after 1784, through the influence of the British back home. Many of these reforms would later be adopted by the forebearers of Indian nationalism - especially Ram Mohan Roy. However, very little of this had to do with genuine altruism - in the words of Lawrence James Britain displayed 'racial arrogance' towards India. Reformers aimed to 'uplift' India from perceived 'despotism'. Quite ironically this 'uplift' issued in a new despotism. As we have already seen, apparently benevolent or altruistic actions were done largely for pragmatism, or as a way to control the population. Bans on female infanticide are a good example of this. Especially in poor, rural India this was common so Britain issued a ban, but to ensure that the ban was in place it meant widescale censuses and state intervention happened. To better control farm land, and in line with 'divide-and-rule', forests were clearly demarcated, and the ensuing deforestation caused small-scale climate change and displaced tribal peoples. A major figure in British demonology was the so-called 'Thugs' - this was a supposed group a highway robbers worshipping the 'demon' cult of Kali. Orientalism influenced how Kali was viewed - a goddess of creation and destruction was recast as Satanic - so the subjugation of 'Thuggee' by William Sleeman was used by Britain as a form of self-congratulation. Gayatri Spivak described justification for colonialism as 'white men protecting brown women from brown men' which can be seen across Britain's reforms. Bans on infanticide, child marriage, polygamy, and sati (widow-burning) were ostensibly altruistic, but for them to happen, as colonialists argued, Britain needed to remain in India. Sati is an interesting case. In 1829 sati was, unsuccessfully, banned with British, and Indian, reformers argued they were saving women - conservative Brahmans argued it was an integral part of Hindu culture despite it largely being limited to the upper castes. During a peak from 1812 to 1819 there were around 800 widow burnings - considering India's population this was a fairly small number - so it was an attempt by upper castes to help forge images of India.

The 1857 Rebellion

'The Sepoy Revolt at Meerut' from the Illustrated London News

1857 was a turning point in Indian history, and has been subjected to a wide series of debates: was it simply a mutiny? A mutiny that turned into a popular uprising? A jihad? Rebellion and mutiny were not uncommon, but the scale of 1857 was. Long-term and short-term factors came together influencing rebellion. British rule was not popular: Christian missions and reforms changing religious practices upset many Indians; the British, now abandoning any pretence of respect to India, were considered aloof and rude; European juries gave harsher punishments to Indians; restriction on peasant mobility left many impoverished; and weavers had lost their industry. Religious millenarianism had made religious slights worsen: in 1856 Islamic preachers in Lucknow had been foretelling a quick end to British, and Christian, rule. A disastrous attempt to invade Afghanistan in 1842 caused Britain to expand its military ranks from which they recruited in Bengal - this was disliked by Rajputs and Bhumihar Brahmans who had monopolised the Bengal army. Furthermore, Indian rulers had recently become infuriated by the EIC. Dalhouise had prevented Lakshmibai, the Rhani of Jhansi, from adopting a son leading to Jhansi's annexation, and he did not have the Board of Directors' permission to annex Awadh. The EIC had also declared that the title of Mughal would end after the death of the elderly Bahadur Shah II. The spark for rebellion would come from something as simple as grease. Rumours emerged that the new Lee Enfield rifle cartridges had to be bitten to release the powder, but the cartridges were covered in grease from beef and pork - offensive to both Hindus and Muslims. Another rumour emerged in the Dum Dum barracks that a low caste soldier mocked a high caste soldier for tasting cow which made him lose his caste. This is commonly cited as the origin of the rebellion, but in reality a different event would do this. Several soldiers were court imprisoned for refusing to use the rifles and their public humiliation is what caused the XI Native Cavalry in Meerut, in the north, to mutiny on 10 May 1857. The soldiers were joined by disgruntled masses, and the next day marched into Delhi, killed European and Christian shopkeepers, and proclaimed a very reluctant 86-year-old Bahadur Shah emperor.

The Rhani of Jhansi

In the words of R.C. Majumdar, 'The people came to believe that the British Raj was at an end and merely took advantage of the political vacuum thus created to serve their own material interests'. Ayesha Jalal and Sugata Bose also described it as, 'a series of regional patriotisms...based on an emotional affinity with the homeland and a rational commitment to principles of good governance'. A second revolt erupted in Awadh which quickly gained popular support where the British garrison were imprisoned in Lucknow. The Rhani of Jhansi personally led her people to siege her old country, while a former Maratha leader, Nana Sahib, inflicted a serious defeat on the British garrison at Kanpur. Reasons why those revolted differed: in Jhansi the people did so through patriotic feeling and mass unemployment, the Rhani to regain her power, and apparently Rana Sahib had been denied a pension from the EIC despite being the son of an important Maratha official. Muslim pastoralists rose up in the far west of the Punjab as soldiers mutinied in the towns, and Afghan soldiers joined urban groups revolting in Hyderabad. Both Hindus and Muslims sensed a loss of country, and the famous Proclamation of Azimgarh of 25 August 1857 stated that, 'both Hindus and Muslims [were] being ruined under the tyranny and oppression of the infidel and treacherous English'. This explains why rebels were so eager to kill Europeans, Christian Indians, and sepoys who remained loyal during the rebellion - to the horror of Bahadur Shah soldiers killed Christians and Europeans before his eyes. The most famous massacre is that at Kanpur - with the British arriving on 15 July over 200 women and children were brutally murdered. 

The hanging of two sepoys in 1857

Massacres by Indians were met with even more brutal massacres by the British. The press exaggerated stories of atrocities, as an example The Times published a story stating that 48 girls as young as ten had been raped. While Charles Dickens wrote that 'I wish I were commander-in-chief in India. I should do my utmost to exterminate the Race upon whom the stain of the late cruelties rested' ,Karl Marx pointed out that the story was fake and had no evidence to back up what was stated. Lieutenant Colonel James Neill, in retaliation for Kanpur, ordered every village they past destroyed and their inhabitants all to be hung. One of the most famous images of the retaliation was Indian rebels being strapped to cannons and blown apart; in a sadistic, and ironic considering why the revolt broke out, punishment Muslims were forced to eat pork and Hindus beef. The Rhani of Jhansi was killed in battle, Bahadur Shah fled Delhi after it was captured in September, and Nana Sahib fled into exile. By November 1858 the revolt had been crushed, 6,000 Europeans had been killed to around 800,000 Indians. There are many reasons why the rebellion was defeated. A key reason was that each section of the rebellion revolted independently and for their own reasons - with no united leadership it was easier for the British to fight back. Divide-and-rule policies had weakened the revolt before it could happen. The proclamation of a new Mughal Empire put off many as the Bengali elite saw it as feudal, whereas Hindus and Sikhs saw it as issuing in a new Islamic empire. Hyderabad had long mistrusted the Marathas saw as there were so many Maratha leaders they saw it as an attempt to rebuild the Maratha Empire. The revolt was located just in the north, so Indian troops from the south were used to crush the revolt - if all of India had revolted British rule would have collapsed. Sikhs especially were used to crush the revolt - the Sikh Empire had been conquered using sepoys from the north, so they had no sympathy with those who revolted.

Reorganisation 

The Mumbai Victoria Station - purposefully built to resemble a British station

The revolt ended company rule. The 1858 Government of India Act dissolved the EIC, reorganised British rule in India, amnestied remaining mutineers, dissolved the Mughal monarchy, and would pave the way for Queen Victoria to be crowned 'Empress of India'. Parliament would reign supreme, followed by a viceroy, and then the local rulers. 'Princely States' were established to rule through in areas that Britain had weak authority. Meanwhile, the army recruited from new communities - by 1875 almost half the army were either Punjabi or Nepalese Gurkhas as they had put down the revolt. Indian troops would now go across the globe - Sikh troops regularly patrolled British sections of Canton - and were deployed in wars ranging from the Mahdi Uprising in Sudan to the Boxer Rebellion in China. During the First World War 60,000 Indian troops died fighting for Britain. Despite company rule coming to an end, free market capitalism dominated economic thinking in India. Private contractors were placed in charge of irrigation networks; new ports were made in Bombay, Madras, and Calcutta to facilitate trade; railways connected these cities to allow movement of goods; and India became a place for British goods. Like other colonies, India was structured as an exporter of raw goods. Tea, oil, cotton, and jute were taken from India across the Empire, and British manufactured goods were imported. This made the Indian economy subservient to, and reliant on, the metropole. Wealthy Indians were, however, allowed into education and some could be educated across the empire. In 1888 Mohandas Gandhi went to London to study law, as an example. 1892 saw Britain gain its first Asian MP - Dadabhai Naoriji became the Liberal Party's MP for Finsbury Central. Not all educated Indians were keen on empire. Naoriiji and Romesh Chandra Dutt, in 1902 he would write Economic History of India under British Rule, both criticised Britain on the basis of the 'drain theory'. India's economy could never develop as it was being drained by Britain, economic exploitation and deindustrialisation stagnated the economy. 

Religious Revivalism and the Rise of Nationalism

The First meeting of the Indian National Congress in 1885

The seeds of nationalism lay with religious revivalism, a long time before 1857 in fact. We have already mentioned the figure of Ram Mohan Roy. Roy, sometimes given the title of 'Father of Indian Renaissance', was born around 1770 to a high caste family, and had campaigned against EIC misrule. In 1828 he co-founded the Brahmo Samaj which aimed to reform Hinduism by rejecting caste; campaign to bring an end to polygamy, sati, and child marriage; widow remarriage; and bringing about education for women and lower castes. The 'Bengal Renaissance' came from the Hindu reformism and revivalism seeing an outpouring of Bengali literature, education, and, later, even cinema. Bengali science-fiction emerged as a genre thanks to the Bengal Renaissance thanks to the writings of Jagadish Chandra Bose. Dutt was not the only Bengali to emerge critical of British rule; Bankin Chandra Chattopadhyay of the Brahmo Samaj critiqued British rule and combined Hinduism with European liberalism. It is from these movements that the Indian National Congress (INC) came into being in 1885. The INC started as a primarily Hindu and high-caste reformist party, but after the First World War would transform into a mass movement that would bring independence under Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru. Not all Hindu revival movements were so eager for such drastic reform. Arya Samaj, founded in 1875 by Dayananda Saraswati in Punjab, wanted reform, like the abolishing of sati, but also promoted shuddi (re-conversion), cow protection, and upper caste practices like vegetarianism. Meanwhile, Vishnubhuwa Brahmachari defended caste, believing it created social equilibrium, and had to return to the 'Golden Age of Vedas' after denigration from Christian missionaries. Hindu nationalist, Swami Vivekannada, would found the Rama Krishna Mission in Calcutta in 1897 in order to reveal the supreme form of living to help the entire community.

The Mohammedan Anglo-Oriental College in 1877

High-caste Hindus were not the only early nationalists and revivalists. Jyotirao Phule was from a lower-caste and the west entirely rejected caste, and helped found the Sathyashodhak Samaj to uplift women, Sudras, and Dalits. The Singh Sabha Movement emerged in the 1870s to promote Sikh revivalism. Wealthy Muslims also engaged in revivalism and nationalism. The Aligarh Movement was founded in 1835 in response to English being made the main language, so wealthy Muslims came together to prevent 'moral loss'. A key figure in this movement was Syed Ahmed Khan who advocated that Muslims learn science, learn Urdu, and embrace British rule to show their loyalty. Like with the Brahmo Samaj, Syed Khan advocated female education, although he believed only wealthy women should be educated. In 1875 the Mohammedan Anglo-Oriental College was founded to allow Muslims to get an education in order to create a class of bureaucrats to aid British rule. In 1906 the Muslim League would be founded to advocate for reform and Muslim rights. Whether it was Hindu, Sikh, or Muslim early movements aimed at reform, and were for the elite. They would set the stage, however, for popular nationalist movements. As they originated as religious revival movements, it would also set the stage for religious strife during the nationalist movement, and later independence. Hindutva, Hindu nationalism, found its origins with groups like the Arya Samaj, and the Cow Protection Societies of the 1890s are the direct ancestors of today's far-right equivalents. As the Aligarh Movement, and Hindu equivalent, modernised Sanskrit two new languages emerged: Hindi and Urdu. Spoken they are very similar, written they are very different, but Hindi became synonymous with Hindus and Urdu with Muslims. These divides reverberate today with Pakistan, India, and Bangladesh.

Conclusion

India set the stage for colonial rule elsewhere. What had happened in India was replicated in Africa. British rule in India set the stage for modern India: the subordination of India's economy to Europe's continue, divide-and-rule placed communities against one another, and modern caste and faith emerged thanks to Britain. However, we also see how Indians adapted and resisted this. If you go to India the local idea of Hinduism differs from what you might hear elsewhere - grassroots belief allowed a synthesis of pre-colonial and colonial belief. 1857 remains a key focal point in Indian national identity, and the ruptures caused by Indians themselves paved the way for the emergence of nationalism. Figures like Gandhi, Nehru, and Muhammad Ali Jinnah had a long history behind them.

The sources I have used are as follows:

-Sugata Bose and Ayesha Jalal, Modern South Asia, Second Edition, (New York, NY: 1998)

-Hermann Kulke and Dietmar Rothermund, A History of India, (London: 1986)

-Lawrence James, Raj: The Making and Unmaking of British India, (London: 1997)

-Biswamoy Pati, (ed.), The 1857 Rebellion, (Oxford: 2007)

-Ronald Indens, Imagining India, (Oxford: 1990)

-Nicholas Dirks, Castes of the Mind, (Princeton: 2001)

-William Dalrymple, White Mughals: Love and Betrayal in Eighteenth-Century India, (London: 2002)

-H.H. Dodwell, (ed.), The Cambridge History of India. Vol. V: British India, 1497-1858, (Cambridge: 1929)

-Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak, 'Can the Subaltern Speak?', in Cary Nelson and Lawrence Grossberg, (eds.), Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture, (London: 1988), 271-314

-Edward Said, Orientalism, (London: 1978)

Thank you for reading and I hope you found it interesting; feel free to recommend any changes or comments. Next time we will be looking at the Zulu Empire in southern Africa. For other World History posts we have a list here. For future blog updates, please see our Facebook or catch me on Twitter @LewisTwiby.