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.

World History: The Mughals

Today we are looking at the last of the so-called 'Gunpowder Empires': the Mughals. The Mughals are perhaps one of the most influential of India's empires with many aspects and images of India which the West has originating from the Mughal Empire. Since the 1990s India's Hindu right has been on the rise, currently the Hindu nationalist party (the BJP) is in power, and memory of the Mughals has been tense for them. The Mughals were Muslim ruling largely over Hindus and many of the Mughal's actions went on to be integral part of Indian culture, and even then many of the early conquests of the Mughals were against other Islamic rulers. Today we'll look at the Mughals to see how important they were in shaping India. We'll start with the first ruler, Babur, and go until the end of the reign of Aurangzeb so we can briefly look at how the empire started to collapse before British rule came about.

Babur and Foundations

Babur in a painting done years after his death

Late many of the other states which we've been looking at the Mughals owed their existence to the Mongols - in fact the word 'Mughal' or 'Moghul' comes from 'Mongol' and was invented in the nineteenth century to describe the empire. The Mughal Empire would be founded around 1526 by Zahir-ud-din Muhammad Babur, or Babur, who was from the Safavid Empire. Babur made claim that on one side of his family he was a direct descendant of Genghis Khan and the other side Timur. For that reason they were often called the 'House of Timur'. It is believed that his autobiography, Baburnama, was written to clarify his legitimacy based on his apparent descent. Babur would often spend his early life waging war to subjugate new areas; he managed to besiege Samarkand and win at the age 14 but he would soon lose it. After 1504 he set out for good taking his mother with him - according to the Baburnama he would occasionally give the only tent to this mother to sleep in. The same year he took Kabul which would remain his favorite place in the world; it was also a key city along the Silk Road setting up later rule in India. Kabul was very diverse with many languages and cultures coexisting, much like India whom the Mughals would later rule over. However, city life never suited Babur and Kabul's revenue was too small for him. He wrote: My desire for Hindustan had been constant. It was in the month of Shaban, the Sun being in Aquarius, that we rode out of Kabul for Hindustan. In 1505 he set out attacking the Afghans and continued the Timurid tradition a swift attacks and brutality for opponents (and those who disobeyed). Anyone who missed the night watch had their nose split in two. In 1519 he even named his son Hindal meaning 'Take India'. To show his devotion to his forces he publicly gave up drinking and claimed he was leading a jihad against the Indian forces. That way he could appeal to the piety of his forces who could martyred if they died. He also made an alliance with the Safavid shah to help his forces.

In the northern India the Islamic Delhi Sultanate had been in power. Due to the alliance with the Safavids Babur claimed his was Shia whereas the Lodi dynasty of Delhi were Sunni. This was how Babur managed to call a jihad. The Delhi Sultanate had been steadily shrinking which benefited the Mughals. Babur mixed traditional cavalry with muskets, hence why the Mughals are considered a 'Gunpowder Empire', which allowed his 1,500 soldiers to defeat the Lodi's forces of 100,000 cavalry and 1,000 elephants at Panipat outside Delhi in 1526. He soon moved into Delhi visiting the mausoleums of two holy men, Nizamuddin Auliya (d.1325) and Qutbuddin Bakhtiyar Kaki (d.1235), and Delhi soon was made his new capital. The Lodis crowned a new leader and allied themselves with the Rajputs, who wanted to expand into lands held by the Delhi Sultanate, and as they marched on Agra in 1527 they met in battle. At the Battle of Khanwa through a mixture of Babur's skill, use of cannons, and when a Hindu chief joined Babur's forces the Rajputs and Lodis were defeated. The new Mughal Empire now stretched across most of northern India.

Babur loathed and liked his new empire in India. In the Baburnama he wrote: 

Hindustan is a country that has few pleasures to recommend it. The people are not handsome. They have no idea of the charms of a friendly society, of frankly mixing together, or of familiar intercourse. They have no genius, no comprehension of mind, no politeness of manner, no kindness or fellow-feeding, no ingenuity or mechanical invention in planning or executing their handicraft works, no good flesh, no grapes or musk melons, no good fruits, no ice or cold water, no good food or bread in their bazaars, no baths or colleges, no candles, no torches, not a candlestick.

He did however praise it for being 'a large country with lots of gold and money. The weather turns very nice during the monsoon.' He praised the generations of tradespeople and how there were many, and he loved the wildlife. Babur would long for Kabul and when he died he would be buried there. Furthermore, the Baburnama would be written in Turkic, and a few poems in Persian, instead of Persian or Hindi which were more widely spoken. The Mughals are well renowned for their construction but it was more limited under Babur. Mostly they were mosques, to show his piety, including the Babri Masjid in Ayodhya which was demolished in 1992 by a Hindu mob as it was believed that a Temple of Ram was demolished to make room for it - something quite pertinent as Ayodhya is where Ram was apparently born.

The Babri Masjid

Mughal Administration and Rule

Before we look at the other Mughal rulers and how they shaped India we need to understand how the state functioned. Of course, throughout Mughal rule this did change. The empire was multi-ethnic, multi-religious, and multi-caste. After the royal family those at the top of society were the ashraf, the nobility, who were made of Muslim families who had migrated from the Persian, Arabian or Turkish-central Asian regions. There were also the mansabdar, a rank introduced by Akbar, often revolving around the military and sometimes the civil service. A mansabdar earned his standing (of course society was patriarchal) based on his zat and suwar. Zat was his rank bestowed by the emperor which often determined the maximum limit of soldiers they had, and suwar was his horses and riders. A mansabdar of 3000-zat 1500-suwar during war had to provide 1500 cavalry but during peace it would be a lot less as that way they could get more money. This system does appear confusing as it was subject to change and historians still are debating what zat and suwar were at any time. There was also a zamindar, landowner, who were stronger in northern India compared to the south as Mughal rule was always stronger in the north. Traditionally zamindars acted a tax collectors for emperors collecting revenue from ryots (peasants) but under the Mughals their role expanded to include police, judicial and military positions as well. Thanks to the mansabdars and zamindars the Mughal system continued when time of trouble happened - something periodic at the start of the reign of each new ruler - although by the end of the Mughals this did cause issues for the state. For this reason some historians, like J.C. Heesterman, have argued that the Mughals were really of confederation of princes with the emperor being more of a powerful figurehead, however, this view has been contested. Of course, regardless the emperor was at the top of society. During military campaigns they often personally went out to war, or their sons would. Like with the early Ottomans and Safavids succession wars would break out unless powerful or favorite sons managed to remove them early on. Babur's son, Humayun, learnt this the hard way when he made his brothers governors and went on to regret it when they vied for power themselves. The harems could also hold sway. Women in court could hold informal power and female relatives of the emperor could exert influence through their husbands.

The expansion of the Mughals

Humayun and the Sur Interregnum

Humayun (1530-40 and 1555-6) has largely been shafted by historians due to the successes of his father and son. Unlike his father he was more interested in magic, mysticism, and astrology compared to fighting, but he was intensely religious - a court figure, Abdul Karim, would be called Abdul due to Karim being a name of God. As mentioned earlier women could play a great influence in court and Humayun's half-sister, Gulbadan, wrote one of his biographies showing how he was peaceable and humane as a ruler. However, Humanyun's rule was never as secure as Babur's. In 1532 a Pashtuni leader, who had started to become prominent under Babur, Sher Khan Suri took hold of Rohtas in Bihar who managed to smuggle in his soldiers who were disguised as women. Soon enough Gaur, Bihar, and Jaunpur (all in the lower Ganges region) fell to Suri. In 1538 Humayun set out to confront Suri in Bengal 'and unfurled the carpet of pleasures', i.e. his stay in Bengal would be in luxury. Everything went wrong at once. His brother, Hindal, executed Humayun's spiritual guide as his older brother Kamran marched from Punjab to stake his claim. In June 1539 Humayun's forces met Suri's at Chausa and the Mughals were roundly defeated. As they had dug in this made the artillery became useless and a bridge collapse caused a great part of the Mughal forces to drown where they were 'dragged by the crocodile of death down into the waters of annihilation'. Humayun himself was almost drowned until he was saved by Shamsuddin Atga of Ghazna whose wife, Jiji Anaga, was later made Akbar's nurse. With his brothers carving up their own domains and with Suri forming his own empire Humayun fled to Kandahar and then to the Safavid Empire. 

While in the Safavid Empire Humayun became close to Shah Tahmasp and Tahmasp finally managed to get the Mughal nobility to convert the Shia Islam, the attempts to convert Babur were largely unsuccessful. For a long time after Safavid-Mughal relations remained strong - when Kamran asked Tahmasp to hand over his brother in return for Kandahar the shah refused. Tahmasp later offered Humayun his aid in retaking India in return for Kandahar, something which he agreed to. Thanks to this period in exile the Mughal nobility would become greatly influenced by Persian culture and when Kabul went back into Humayun's hands it became a major center for Safavid artists. Meanwhile, back in India Suri's reforms proved to greatly shape India and later Mughal rule functioned due to his reforms. The precursor to the modern rupee began under the Sur dynasty; the Grand Trunk Road was constructed which still links Bengal to Peshawar; 1,800 caravanserias and numerous fountains were set up between Sonargon in Bengal and the Indus; an efficient policing system was established to keep the roads safe; and on the Jhelum river, near modern Islamabad, the fortress of Rohtas was built which is a UNESCO Heritage Site today. Suri's reign ended quickly in 1545. He would expand the Mughal lands and while sieging the Kalinjar fort of the Rajputs a rocket ricocheted off of the fort's walls and exploded near Suri. Just as he died the fortress fell. His sudden death left his new empire weakened so Humayun could retake his empire in 1555. After dealing with Kamran he reinstalled himself in Delhi. Humayun's reign would soon end. As the call to prayer was issued Humayun tripped down the steps of his library tower leading to his death three days later. One scholar quite unflatteringly wrote that he 'stumbled into death as he had stumbled through life'. His tomb would become a place of pilgrimage after completion.

Akbar

Akbar

Akbar, sometimes called Akbar the Great, is seen as the greatest Mughal, and sometimes Indian, ruler. However, a great part of this was due to looking at his reign retroactively from the reign of his great-grandson Aurangzeb. Akbar has been seen as the humane ruler compared to Aurangzeb's tyranny despite how early in his reign Akbar would have many of his enemies who surrendered executed. He also personally threw a foster brother from a balcony in order to execute him. Also, in order to test whether children could learn to speak without being taught he had infants raised in isolation by nurses who refused to speak to them and a few years later it turned out they were mute and mentally retarded. Although he was barely literate, John Keay believed that he may have been dyslexic, Akbar was a great patron of the arts and is one of the most well recorded Mughal emperors thanks to scholar and Grand Vizier Abu Fazl. Akbar saw himself as being Indian instead of Turkic - he had great respect for his nurse Jiji Anaga, and Shamsuddin Atga would become an important official under him. He had the Baburnama translated into Persian and he oversaw a library of over 24,000 books of Hindi, Persian and Turkic origin. His own book, Akbarnama, has been seen as a great text of Indian literature. Art, literature and architecture boomed under Akbar's patronage although only the nobility could truly engage with this. Using firearms effectively with elephants and cavalry until his death in 1605 the Mughal Empire expanded exponentially. Kabul, Kandahar, modern Pakistan, Gujarat and Bengal were all added into the empire. This brought millions more people into the empire, Abu Fazl believed that around 100 million people lived there, bringing in more ethnicities, religions and economies. As a result the mansabdars were made.

A scene from Akbar's Ramayana

Akbar has been noted for his religious tolerance - although it could be due to pragmatism being a Muslim ruler in a primarily Hindu state. Akbar ended the jizya, the tax on non-Muslims, had a Muslim scholar al-Badauni to translate the Mahabharata and Ramayana, and had a personal copy of the Ramayana in 1588 depicting 176 superb illustrations. He encouraged Muslim, Hindu, Jat, and Christian scholars to have debates and after a spiritual moment while hunting in 1578 he took up yogic and Sufi practices, became a vegetarian, and started promoting religious syncretism more. He ate with the third Sikh guru and even created his own religion, Din-i-Ilhai. This religion primarily took from Hinduism and Islam but also brought elements from Jainism, Buddhism, Christianity and Zoroastrianism, and Akbar never had it enforced. At most 18 people joined the new religion and that was likely due to them trying to get into good graces with Akbar. However, his tolerance did upset the ulema (the Islamic religious community) and when Muslim revolts broke out some did issue fatwas against him. The economy expanded and changed under Akbar's rule as well, so much so that caste distinctions started to become blurred. Vaishyas (merchants), especially in coastal cities, started becoming richer than kshatriyas (warriors) and brahmas (religious elite and teachers). Lower castes could even get involved by converting to Islam and joining the civil service. Textiles and cotton soon became profitable and the Mughals soon became one of the leading producers of cotton. Akbar ensured that the Khyber Pass and Grand Trunk Road were well defended to ensure trade could happen unaffected by crime and sea trade expanded when the empire expanded into Bengal and Gujarat. The empire came into proper contact with Portugal, who established themselves in Goa in 1510, and with the Ottoman Empire further out. 

Jahangir and Shah Jahan

Akbar's last years were faced with a revolt from his son Salim but they made amends thanks to Akbar's mother so that upon his death in 1605 Salim could become emperor Jahangir. He was truly India - his mother, Jodhai Bai, was a Rajput princess. Jahangir's reign has often been viewed through the lens of his later reign which was consumed by drink and opium. Despite being much shorter his reign was very similar to his father's: conquest, crushing of rebellions, and consumption of the arts. Curiously he could be tolerant to rebels unless he had a severe hatred for them: one, Malik Ambar, was an Abyssinian eunuch whom was depicted in a painting being decapitated and shot with an arrow by Jahangir surrounded by angels. Women in court became very powerful under Jahangir, especially during his times of indulgence in opium, and one in particular was his wife Nur Jahan. Competent, athletic and intelligent she managed to ensure that she could be the true power behind the throne. She even got Jahangir's most loved son Khurram was married to her niece, Arjumand Banu, who in turn would become very powerful herself. Chinese historian Craig Clunas has written extensively on how conspicuous consumption shows social power - we see this in the Mughal court. To show that Safavid-Mughal relations were strong the painter Bishndas shows Jahangir hugging, or more like crushing, the Safavid ruler. Many paintings were done by Ustad Mansur depicting animals in his menagerie, and later Khurram's court, including a Siberian crane (which was not formally described until the 1770s) and even a dodo! It is believed that two dodos were gifts from the Portuguese. Similarly, the English East India Company seeking trade with India sent Sir Thomas Roe to meet with Jahangir. Roe described the life at court and lamented Jahangir's desire for luxury goods: wine, unusual games, European paintings, and even a carriage for Nur Jahan. He even once lamented how his personal gift to Jahangir was turned down as it was only worth 400 rupees.

Ustad Mansur's depiction of a dodo

The Red Fort today

In 1628 Shah Jahan, Khurram, became emperor and he has become known as the 'Great Builder' for his building projects. He had fought Malik Ambar and resolved to conquer Deccan (in southern India) after. Shah Jahan was devoted to his wife Mumtaz Mahal whom was given the title 'Queen of the World'. When she died giving birth to her fourteenth child in sixteen years in 1631 Shah Jahan was inconsolable. He wrote: The pleasures of worldly rule and kingship, which were mine with her by my side, have now become burdens and increasing sources of grief! Starting in 1632 he commissioned a grand mausoleum for her which would become the Taj Mahal costing 32 million rupees, or US $827 million in today's money. On top of the Taj Mahal we have the magnificent Peacock Throne, which went missing in the eighteenth-century, was commissioned and Shah Jahan even built an entire city: Shahjahanabad. This walled city is today's Old Delhi containing spacious living areas for nobles, a large mosque, and the Red Fort - a key building in Indian iconography today. A Persian architect, 'Ali Mardan Khan, was hired to create the Shalimar Gardens in Lahore and 'Abdul Hamid Lahori was hired to write the Padshahnama receiving 3,000 rupees and his own weight in gold. One chronicler wrote accurately that 'The treasury cried out, "Don't touch me"'. However, Shah Jahan regularly faced issues. In 1630 a famine led to 2 million starving to death, revolutions broke out among the Rajputs and Sikhs, and there was even a war with Portugal. During the wars his son Aurangzeb rose to prominence and soon became a key ruler. When rumors of Shah Jahan's health was going Aurangzeb seized Agra and imprisoned his father and sister, Jahanara, until Shah Jahan's death in 1666.

Aurangzeb

Aurangzeb

Aurangzeb has been known as a tyrannical and intolerant emperor ruling with an iron fist and enforcing Islam onto South Asia. Especially compared to Akbar he has been seen as the stereotypical Oriental despot draining the peasants dry as he enforced his religion onto them. However, in recent years his idea has been challenged, such as by Ayesha Jalal. It is true that Aurangzeb did rule with an iron fist, as did many rulers, and was deeply pious his rule has started to be seen as being more pragmatic than anything else. He did strictly enforce prohibition, poetry, and wearing gold colored clothing in court his other policies are seen as combining piety with pragmatism. Bringing back the hated jizya and reducing spending on lavish tombs (his own mausoleum is quite small) and consumption has been seen as a way to save money after the battering the treasury received under Shah Jahan. His destruction of Hindu temples have now been noted as being in retaliation for rebellious Hindu nobles. At times he did build Hindu temples and brought many more Hindus into the buraeucracy. Of course, this pragmatism was still at the expense of the non-Muslim citizens of the empire who became very disgruntled. For one, when Sikhs refused to convert he had Guru Tegh Bahadur executed in 1675. Under Aurangzeb three things from earlier Mughal rulers continued: expansion, economic growth, and conspicuous consumption. The consumption was different to that of earlier emperors combining piety with Shah Jahan's construction projects. Many mosques were made under Aurangzeb and some could be very extravagant, like the Babshahi mosque in Lahore. Expansion of traditional industries (like textiles), trade and taxation allowed the Mughals to be the largest economy in 1690 with it having a quarter of the estimated GDP of the world and monthly income was ten times that of Louis XIV's France (who made Versailles). Conquest had brought most of southern India under Mughal rule, only the southern tip of the subcontinent escaped Mughal rule, by his death in 1707.

The later collapse of the Mughals began in proper under the reign of Aurangzeb, Annemarie Schimmel even says 1707 is the end of the Mughals despite the last emperor being deposed by the British in 1858. Many revolts broke out with several coming from the Jats, Pashtuns, and Sikhs. The most important, however, is the rise of the Marathas. The Marathas were founded under a warrior called Shivaji Bhonsle who began almost a guerrilla campaign against originally the Sultanate of Bijapur and later the Mughals after a brief stint of imprisonment in Agra in 1668. Shivaji was crowned in 1674 founding the Marathas and began plundering Mughal, and Bijapur, lands to enrich his kingdom. Maratha forces would demand money from villages and towns, or they would burn it down, and then the Mughals would take their share leading the settlement to become impoverished. As Shivaji was Hindu and pushed Marathi over Persian he attracted local support and had locals blame the Mughals for their woes. Aurangzeb could have easily crushed the Marathas but he chose a defensive course by securing forts in Deccan assuming if they couldn't take forts they would be cut off from income and weapons. This failed and Aurangzeb's son, Muhammad Akbar, even fled to the Maratha court declaring himself emperor in 1681. After Shivaji's death in 1680 his son and widow continued the power of the Marathas. Within a century the Marathas had replaced the Mughals as South Asia's most powerful empire. However, the mansabdari and zamindari system meant that the empire retained control despite these setbacks. Despite some arguments that the empire began to fall in 1707 with Aurangzeb's death things only really went downhill after 1712 with his son's death.

Mughals and the World

The Mughals were integrated into a global world - originally Turkic they spoke Persian at court and ruled over a variety of peoples. A constant love-hate relationship emerged with the Safavids - both were Islamic empires whose origins were closely linked but this close proximity brought issue. When the Safavids retook Kandahar from the Mughals a painting was issued of Shah Jahan hugging the Safavid shah, and also making the emperor taller than the shah. The Mughals large population, in both the cities and country, allowed the production of many goods which in turn allowed trade. Their position allowed them to engage with both the Silk Road and Indian Ocean trade. Indian ivory, spices and cotton to name a few goods found their way to the Swahili coast in West Africa, China, Indonesia, and Arabia. Relations with the Ottomans were constant and one of Humayun's rebellious brothers were exiled to Mecca. Relations also opened with Europe - Portugal even established themselves in Goa sixteen years before the Mughals established themselves in Delhi. Indian states viewed their sovereignty as ending at the coast where the sea was free game. What can be seen as piracy was even encouraged - out of season fishers would go on raids and return the profits back home which would be collected by the Mughals or even kingdoms through taxes. This differed to the European idea of Mare Nostrum (Our Sea). First Portugal and the later English, French and Dutch wanted a monopoly on sea trade so edged out Indian sailors. Portugal issued a cartaz, or license, to sailors to operate and those without one were declared pirates. This enabled Europeans to edge out local traders or declare Indian enemies pirates. This was also utilized by locals to their advantage. The Mughals managed to convince the English that the Marathan navy was in fact a pirate navy.

A depiction of the British battling the Maratha navy whom they called pirates

Compared to later initial Europeans were respectful to Indian rulers as they were not in the position of power; however, in private they would portray Indians in an Oriental view, just one less derogatory of eighteenth century depictions. Sir Thomas Roe caused outrage in the court when he asked for a chair, for example. Europeans were dependent on local rulers and as a result Europeans were eager to lend their services to Mughals, or others like the Marathas, if it meant that they could get an edge over competitors. The Dutch and English East Indian Companies by the end of the seventeenth century had largely ousted the Portuguese and even the Scottish tried to get involved; bankruptcy through the failed attempt to colonize Panama prevented them from having any form of presence. England established trading posts in Surat (1619), Madras (1639), Bombay (1668), and Calcutta (1690) forming over forty 'factories', heavily armed trading posts, to take part in Indian trade.

The decline of Empire

Due to the length of this post and as I want to expand on this more in two other posts we will only briefly look at the collapse of the Mughals. Crispin Bates has identified seven key factors behind the decline as well as various other smaller ones. English Whig historian T.B. Macauley (1800-59) described the emperors between 1707 and the 1740s as 'a succession of nominal sovereigns sunk in indolence and debauchery, sauntering away life in secluded palaces, chewing bhang, fondling concubines and listening to buffoons' and there is some claim to this despite being very Orientalist. This description is a symptom not a cause of decline although it did aid in it - unable to prevent decline emperors secluded themselves further preventing pushbacks against such decline. After Aurangzeb's death the empire became less centralized so when prosperity dropped mansabdars to ignore Delhi's power and this was made worse by 'tax-farming'. This is when the right to collect taxes was granted to individuals for a limited period in an area except that this was abused with tax-farmers keeping revenue themselves or taking more taxes from the land destroying certain prosperous areas. Meanwhile, the merchant class, which had been growing more and more independent, had started by Aurangzeb's death to cease paying taxes, or even fund opponents. The Marathas and Mysore were just two states to benefit from this and their wars chipped away at the empire. External opponents also affected the empire like the Afghans whose leader, Nadir Shah, sacked Delhi in 1739 and carried away the Peacock Throne. We also see the rise of peasant community rebellions, especially with the Jats, and according to Bates these rebellions differed to earlier ones. Taxation had often been decided following a rebellion but by the late-seventeenth and early-eighteenth centuries rebellions were from the bottom up. Rebellions with no noble leaders prevented negotiated settlements. These several factors were just some of the many factors which caused the decline of the Mughals.

A British depiction of the Battle of Plassey, 1757, which saw Britain formally take over parts of India

Conclusion

The achievement of the Mughals cannot be understated. Turkic in origin, speakers of Persian, and rulers of Hindus and various other religious groups they represent the diversity of South Asia. They were so successful that the attempted successor states and British India adopted the administration and bureaucracy of the Mughals. Today we've only explored a small section of Mughal India; we have hardly explored women, caste, and economics in the empire for one. The Mughals highlight India's diverse origins and this has placed successive Indian governments in an issue in constructing an Indian nation. Under the Mughals South Asia became a powerful state and the explosion of the arts, like the Taj Mahal and Red Fort, have become impossible to intertwine from Indian nationhood. However, as they were made by Muslims the current wave of Hindu nationalism has tried to reinterpret such grandeur and the legacy of the Mughals as being more Hindu than Islamic. The Mughals greatly shaped India and will continue to do so.

The next World History post will focus on the Tokugawa shogunate of Japan and how they shaped Japanese history. The sources I have used are as follows:

-Annemarie Schimmel, The Empire of the Great Mughals: History, Art and Culture, (London: Reaktion Books Ltd., 2004)

-Irfan Habib, (ed.), Akbar and his India, (New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1997)

-John Keay, India: A History, (London: HarperCollins, 2000)

-Peter Robb, A History of India, Second Edition, (New York, NY: 2011, Palgrave Macmillan)

-Sugata Bose and Ayesha Jalal, Modern South Asia: History, Culture, Political Economy, (London: 1998, Routledge)

-Crispin Bates, Subalterns and the Raj, South Asia since 1600, (New York, NY: 2007, Routledge)

-Catherine Asher, 'India: The Mughals, 1526-1858', in Jim Masselos, (ed.), The Great Empires of Asia, (London: 2010, Thames & Hudson)

Thank you for reading. For other World History posts please see our list. For future blog updates please see our Facebook or catch me on Twitter @LewisTwiby

History in Focus: The Partition of India

Muslim Refugees Fleeing India

As of writing this week has seen the 70th anniversary of the Partition of the British Raj forming the new states of India and Pakistan. The Partition is the single most important event in the modern history of the Indian subcontinent which still continues to greatly shape the lives of those living there. This divided subcontinent can be clearly seen in the extravagent closing of the border each evening at Wagah:

The Partition was an event of great trauma brought on about the incompetency of British rule and diverging Indian nationalist movements. To understand why the Indian subcontinent was divided into primarily Muslim Pakistan and Hindu India we have to go back to the 1800s.

British Rule and Early Nationalism

Raja Ram Mohan Roy

By the late-nineteenth century Britain had established its rule over the Indian subcontinent. Britain was the first state to establish formal or informal rule over the entire continent. In 1900 what parts of the subcontinent that weren't directly administered by the British were ruled by the so-called 'Princely States'. Princely States were ruled by princes but they had to answer to the British. Other European powers did control some of the subcontinent but they were largely confined to singular cities, like Goa for Portugal and Pondicherry for France. India was ruled from London. A secretary of state for India controlled affairs from the British cabinet, a governor-general ruled in India, and Indians were brought into the British army where they were used to govern the empire. There are photos of the British section of Shanghai where Sikh soldiers are patrolling the streets. Britain had also created a trade surplus in India. Through a mixture of Britain's industrial power and the destruction of large Indian industries, such as the Bengali cotton weaving, so Britain could dominate the Indian economy. Following the Indian Rebellion of 1857 the East Indian Company was dissolved and the British state formally took over. To aid in administration in 1861 they started bringing more Indians into the administration; Indians were increasingly ruling Indians for the British. It was in this context that the seeds of Indian nationalism took root.

To create administrators you needed education but the British looked down on India. As a result they built their own universities and institutions which taught European philosophies and politics, including liberalism. Slowly a European educated elite emerged. One thing to know about the subcontinent is how diverse it is. Today's India contains over 2000 languages not including those in Pakistan and Bangladesh. It is divided by caste and religion with Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, Christians, Sikhs, Zoroastrians, Pagans, and Jains to name the largest religions in the subcontinent. Making matters worse was Britain's 'divide-and-rule' policy. This was done in all their colonies ranging from Cyprus to Palestine to Malaysia. On the surface this was done to prevent minorities from being dominated by larger populations, however it was a policy used to make the colonized view each other as the enemy so they could not form a united front. In India this was done over religious lines. Muslims were a minority and through farcical Social Darwinistic thinking the British viewed India's Muslims as being racially superior to Hindus so readily brought them administration, (although this is an oversimplification. British racial attitudes favored Muslims in some places and times and Hindus/Sikhs in other areas and times). As a result European educated high-caste Hindus formed reform movements which acted as early nationalist movements. One of the most famous was the Brahmo Savaj who was founded as early as 1828 by Raja Ram Mohan Roy, often called 'the Maker of Modern India'. Roy and the Brahmo Savaj wished to 'modernize' Hinduism, which meant making it more European, by abolishing certain practices like child marriage and sati (burning high-caste widows on their husband's funeral pyre). In 1875 the Arya Samaj was founded by Bengali Dayananda Saraswati to continue the work of the Brahmo Savaj but it went further rejecting idols. Muslims too made their own groups like the Deobandi Movement which tried to reject British colonial rule and the Khalifat . These separate movements focused solely on religion and were elitist. 

The Inspiration for the Nationalist Movement

The Swadeshi Movement

The two main organizations for Indian nationalism and independence were the Indian National Congress, (INC/Congress, formed 1885), and the All-India Muslim League, (formed 1906). These movements grew from elitist movements to mass movements thanks to the new viceroy, Lord Curzon. In the late 1890s and early 1900s Curzon had earned the ire of educated Indians by reducing the numbers of elected Indian officials to reduce radicalism. Then in 1905 for administrative purposes he divided Bengal. Bengal had been going through a 'Renaissance' where a largely nationalist movement based on Hindu revivalism had grown. As his division fell on religious lines Bengalis saw this as an attempt to divide their homeland. This even caused the creation of the Muslim League as they feared that this would lead to Hindu domination. The Swadeshi movement was soon born which was India's largest mass movement since the 1857 Rebellion. Swadeshi means 'of one's own country' which describes the aims of the movement: boycott British goods. It soon spread across India where leading politician in west India, Lokamanya Tilak, said:

We are not armed and there is no necessity for arms either. We have a stronger weapon, a political weapon, in boycott. We have perceived one fact that the whole of this administration...is carried on with our assistance. We are all subordinate servants...Self government is our goal, we want control over our administrative machinery...We shall not give them assistance to collect revenue and keep peace. We shall not assist them in fighting beyond the frontiers or outside India with Indian blood and money. We shall not assist them in carrying on the administration of justice. We shall have our own courts, and when the time comes, we shall not pay taxes. Can you do that by your united efforts? If you can you are free from tomorrow.

We see the rise of violence in the independence movement here as British repression created two very different armed groups: the right-wing, Hindu Anushilan and the smaller but left-wing and secular Jugantar. In Punjab the Arya Samajists took over turning Swadeshi into a Hindu movement alienating Muslims. Tilak himself was arrested for talking about terrorism which provoked riots which the British shot at. Through a mixture of repression, arresting Swadeshi leaders and the outbreak of the First World War the movement petered out but it had inspired many people. British repression during the First World War radicalized many and some even became inspired by Irish nationalists. After the 1916 Easter Dublin Rising a group named themselves the Indian Republican Army (IRA), in solidarity with the Irish. Around 1.2 million Indians fought in the British army during the war inspiring many to fight for Indian autonomy, if not independence. In 1919 the Government of India Act created a Council of State and an Imperial Legislative Assembly electing 1.5 million of the wealthiest Indians despite it having a population of 300 million. It also introduced special seats for Muslims and non-Brahmin categories. Acceptance of this was called the Lucknow Pact and was made by Muhammad Ali Jinnah, later a prominent promoter of Pakistan. This limited reform still left millions disenfranchised but it took the steam out of nationalism. That is until a lawyer who had worked in South Africa and London returned to India: Mahatma Gandhi.

Gandhi, Popular Movement and Divisions

Gandhi

Gandhi had practiced non-violent protest in South Africa. Focusing on just one issue he had managed to improve rights for Indians in South Africa, although at the expense of discriminating against Africans. While in South Africa the racism he had seen made him come to the conclusion that Indians were subjects and not citizens of the British Empire. In his 1909 publication Hind Swaraj he condemned all things modern and Western in favor of a communalistic 'Golden Age' of a self-reliant, Indian past. He also coined the word satyagraha to describe his non-violent protests which focused on one issue at a time. Styling himself as a Hindu holy man and a peasant Gandhi returned to India where he started agitating with his fellow Gujaratis in Kheda where they boycotted British goods, (he was heavily inspired by the Swadeshi movement), in protest of a revision of raising land taxes to cover wartime, and post-war, expenditure. This and more satyagraha protests started to increase Gandhi's profile but he became widely prominent thanks to his condemnation of Britain's whitewashing of the Jallianwalla Bagh massacre which had left 379 dead. In 1921 Gandhi became head of the INC. Gandhi wished the INC to welcome all Indians regardless of caste, class or religion. He supported the Muslim Khilafat movement where Indian Muslims tried to campaign to preserve the Ottoman Caliph, called for Muslims to give up eating beef and Hindus pork to respect one another, and created an alliance with the Sikh Akali Dal. During the 1920s and 1930s the INC led a mass movement bringing together 70 million peoples to peacefully fight British imperialism.

However, things were never united. Muhammad Ali Jinnah split from the INC shortly after Gandhi advocated supporting Khalifat despite being a Muslim himself. Jinnah opposed Gandhi's emphasis on religion and viewed the Khalifat movement as being religious zealotry, (as well as seeing Gandhi himself as being overly pro-Hindu). Others opposed non-violence. Subhas Chandra Bose believed that violence should have been used much to Gandhi's ire, and that of future INC leader Jawaharlal Nehru. By the Second World War he had become radicalized and formed an alliance with the Axis where he formed the Free India Legion from 3,000 Indian POWs from North Africa, and later Japan got him the 40,000 strong Indian National Army made out of recruited Indian POWs captured when Japan took control of South East Asia. Caste was also an issue. Gandhi supported the emancipation of the 'untouchables' or Dalits but he clashed with INC member B.R. Ambedkar on how to do this. Ambedkar was a Dalit and believed that to emancipate them they had to have certain privileges until they reached equality such as separate electorates and reservations in government positions. Gandhi disagreed believing that this would make higher castes actively discriminate against lower castes. Instead he argued that treating everyone the same and giving Dalits the name harijan, (person of Vishnu). Ambedkar saw this as just papering over the issues and only relented when Gandhi threatened another hunger strike. Finally the main division was religion. Although the INC had many non-Hindu members it was overwhelmingly Hindu, and Gandhi's persona of a Hindu holy man disgruntled many Muslims. Furthermore, Ambedkar saw Hinduism as the religion of Dalit oppression, (he later converted to Buddhism), so this didn't help him much. This religious division set the stage for Partition.

An Idea of Pakistan

Muhammad Iqbal

In 1928 the INC had become so powerful and organized that Jawaharlal Nehru declared that in a report that the INC could form a government in waiting based on a strong central government with a command economy. Five years later a Cambridge educated Punjabi called Choudhry Rahmat Ali released a pamphlet advocating a new state called 'Pakistan'. This new state was designed to be a separate state from a Hindu dominated India comprising of India's Muslims provinces. Even the name amalgamated the names of the provinces with an 'i' added to ease pronunciation: Punjab, Afghan Province, Kashmir, Sind and Baluchistan. This was seen by poet and politician Muhammad Iqbal who took it as his personal goal and is sometimes referred to as the 'Spiritual Founder of Pakistan'. Iqbal knew Jinnah and some believe that Jinnah's permanent split with the INC to promote Pakistan was through Iqbal's influence. Until his death in 1938 Iqbal tried to strengthen Jinnah and the Muslim League saying: 

There is only one way out. Muslims should strengthen Jinnah's hands. They should join the Muslim League. Indian question, as is now being solved, can be countered by our united front against both the Hindus and the English. Without it, our demands are not going to be accepted. People say our demands smack of communalism. This is sheer propaganda. These demands relate to the defense of our national existence.... The united front can be formed under the leadership of the Muslim League. And the Muslim League can succeed only on account of Jinnah. Now none but Jinnah is capable of leading the Muslims.

Jinnah's devotion to Pakistan is heavily debated. It took the Lahore Resolution of 1940 for Jinnah to vocally call for Muslim provinces to be 'autonomous and sovereign'. Ayesha Jalal has argued that Jinnah only threatened Partition as a bargaining chip with Congress which backfired whereas Faisal Deviji has argued that Partition would only be temporary, Pakistan and India would be formed and then come together again. It is important to note that Pakistan and the Muslim League remained an elite movement compared to Congress which cut across all of society. This is shown with the 1937 elections. In 1935 the Government of India Act gave India more independence than the 1919 act but the British still kept a grip on India. It did allow elections which were held in 1937 where Congress won eight out of eleven provinces, and the League won no provinces. Punjab was even outright hostile to the League! Nehru went ahead with his plans but he was both secular and a socialist which meant no distinctions for religion and a centralized government. In a position of overwhelming power he ignored the League's demands for Muslim electorates. When the Second World War broke out the Congress government resigned in protest of the viceroy declaring war despite not consulting them. In 1942 Gandhi organized the 'Quit India Campaign' where it got particular support in the countryside. When it became violent Gandhi said that the British should either 'leave India to God or leave India to anarchy'. Three groups refused to take part: Communists, (as they feared it would distract from the fight against fascism), the borderline far-right Hindu Mahasabha under V.D. Savarkar and B.S. Munje (as subalterns, women and Congress were organizing it), and the Muslim League. Not being in government and not taking part in Quite India let the League gain prominence and with it Partition.

Partition

Buildings destroyed during Partition

Partition can be described as a tragedy that no-one wanted but everyone was to blame. British incompetence and shirking of responsibility, Jinnah's gamble backfiring, and Nehru's intransigence can all be argued to have played roles in causing Partition. Following the defeat of European fascism and Japanese ultra-nationalism Indian soldiers returned home politicized by Franklin Roosevelt's Atlantic Charter promising self-determination for all peoples. Although Jinnah remained unpopular with many educated Muslims (in modern North-West Frontier Province, then Afghan Province, around 50% disliked him), many Muslims viewed him positively. An attempt during the war by Labour called the Cripps Mission to work for a post-war, independent united India was sabotaged by Winston Churchill who virulently opposed any notion of independence. Churchill soon lost the post-war election bringing in the reformist Labour party of Clement Attlee. Attlee wanted Indian independence, mostly as it was a drain on the British economy by now, Nehru wanted independence, and Jinnah wanted independence but none wanted Partition. The long standing religious based nationalist movements exacerbated recently by the Great Depression, (which forced communities to look inward), and the actions of recent nationalists created a tense situation. In 1946 when Indian soldiers were ordered to go to Vietnam to restore French rule they mutinied and the Communist Party ordered strikes. When members Bose's Indian National Army, (a Hindu, Sikh and Muslim), were tried for 'waging war against the king' leading Congressmen, including Nehru offered to represent them. Slowly communalistic violence and communist agitation lead to a breakdown of the state with the newly appointed Lord Mountbatten proving to be utterly useless and aloof to the violence. Despite Gandhi threatening a hunger strike it was decided that the only way to stop it was Partition and soon.

Wishing to cut its losses Britain sped up the date for the Partition to August 14 1947 for Pakistan and August 15 for India. Jinnah tried to protest against Britain creating a 'truncated or mutilated moth-eaten Pakistan' where India would inherit all of the British Raj's wealth and resources. The Princely States were informed that they would have to join either one of the two states; primarily Muslim states to Pakistan and primarily Hindu states to India. Britain had allotted Sir Cyril Radcliffe to draw a border between the two new states. However there were three issues with this: he had never been to India, he was given out of date maps and censuses to see which communities were which religion, and he finished drawing the border the day after Indian independence. The general masses went into panic. Primary sources tell a harrowing story of how communities fearing that they would be dominated in the opposite state resorted to massacring their neighbors in a form of ethnic cleansing to ensure that they would end up in the correct state. People have recounted how the people who they regarded as auntie, grandmother or grandfather were suddenly set upon because they were the wrong religion. Muslims massacred Hindus and Sikhs while Hindus and Sikhs massacred Muslims. To avoid murder, and for women rape, millions fled their homes becoming refugees. Only in Bengal was this less of a case, (although many thousands were either murdered or fled). It was particularly bad in the Punjab which was split directly in the middle. It is estimated that 6 million Muslims fled to Pakistan and 4.5 million Hindus and Sikhs fled. As late as 1958 over 800,000 refugees remained in camps in Indian Bengal. Most tragically we do not know how many women were raped during Partition. Post-Partition narratives of this kind have been silenced by the states. Although heavily affected Dalits managed to survive. Particularly in the Punjab after being treated horrifically by communities for years they managed to hide out as communities massacred one another which then allowed them to move in and basically loot what remained. 

The only figure who could have stopped the spontaneous violence was Gandhi. After fasting had failed to stop Partition he devoted himself to traveling across India to call for peace. In Delhi and Calcutta he succeeded by fasting until he almost died. He was also planning to go to Pakistan and had accepted to speak at a Muslim shrine in Delhi in hope that it could bring peace. Soon Partition consumed the person who many regard as the 'Father of India'. On January 13 1948 Gandhi was assassinated by a member of the Hindu Mahasabha called Nathuram Godse. Historian Crispin Bates has described the consequence of Gandhi's assassination best: Since it was a Hindu, not a Muslim, who ended his [Gandhi's] life, in the horrified hush that followed the fans of communalism were suddenly stilled.

Legacy

Image from the 2002 Gujarat Riots

Jinnah didn't want a truncated Pakistan but that is what he got. More Muslims lived in the new India than Pakistan and the Muslim areas of northern India which were meant to connect Pakistan to Pakistani Bengal were given to India. The Princely State of Kashmir went to India despite being largely Muslim as the prince not only was a Hindu but a personal friend of Nehru. Almost immediately a small war broke out over Kashmir and there have been two wars since. Another war won Bengal's independence, modern Bangladesh, where the Muslim Bengalis had more in common with their Hindu neighbors than their fellow Muslims. India also inherited most of the Raj's wealth, 90% of the Raj's industry and taxable income went to India, as well as 70% of the defense force. Indian democracy has succeeded, other than a small blip of authoritarian rule under Indira Gandhi (no relation to Mahatma) in the late 1970s, while Pakistan has gone from military rule to even more military rule. This is because Congress was a mass party and the League was an elite party. Wealthy Punjabi land owners fled to Pakistan and dominated politics preventing a democracy from emerging like India. Jinnah could have saved Pakistani democracy but he died in 1948 through tuberculosis. Prior to Partition there was some excitement over Pakistan and India. These two states were imagined to be the two new power states. Pakistan in particular excited the left with it being a state made for a minority. Early Zionism had Israel being a state for Jews and not a Jewish state, and Pakistan was seen similarly; it was to be a state for Muslims and not a Muslim state. There were talks that it could be a pioneer of socialism with the USSR and could emancipate women and lower castes. With a weak democratic footing these dreams were soon shattered.

Partition has left a scar on the subcontinent which has been brushed over until recently. Decades after Partition the two states came together to repatriate women who had been kidnapped and forced to marry their kidnappers. However, the women weren't consulted and quite a few didn't want to be repatriated as it meant abandoning their children. The video at the start of the article is the more pleasant side to the Indo-Pakistan rivalry. Bollywood has produced many films over the most recent conflict with Pakistan. Currently the Bharatriya Janata Party (BJP) ruling India is a descendant from the Hindu Mahasabha which took Gandhi's life. Their ideology, Hindutva, has become particularly large since the 1990s when the destruction of a large mosque called the Babri Masjid happened, and even then it was popularized by the Hindutva groups. At the start of this section I showed a photo from the 2002 Gujarat Riots. These riots were communal causing clashes between Hindus and Muslims. In Muslim areas of Gujarat 'Pakistan' and 'Return to Pakistan' were graffitied on Muslim homes and businesses. Finally, Britain has whitewashed its abandoning and role in Partition. Only recently with newer generations have the British public become aware of their role in scarring the Indian subcontinent and it may be generations more before Britain accepts its responsibility for it. For India and Pakistan millions are still living with the consequences of Partition.

The sources I have used are as follows:

-Subalterns and the Raj: South Asia since 1600 by Crispin Bates

-Modern South Asia: History, Culture, Political Economy by Sugata Bose and Ayesha Jalal

-The Origins of the Partition of India, 1936-1947 by Anita Inder Singh

-Asim Roy, 'The High Politics of India's Partition: The Revisionist Perspective', Modern Asia Studies, 1990, 24:2

-The Long Partition and the Making of Modern South Asia: Refugees, Boundaries, Histories by Vazira Fazila-Yacoobali Zamindar

-The Great Partition: The Making of India and Pakistan by Yasmin Khan

Thank you for reading. If you found this interesting please leave a comment or share this post. For more blog updates we have a Facebook page or you can find me on Twitter @LewisTwiby