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.

Left-Wing and the 'Other' History: Gayatri Spivak's 'Can the Subaltern Speak?'

Gayatri Spivak

One of the most influential works in postcolonial studies is Can the Subaltern Speak? (1983) by Gayatri Spivak. Spivak, in her own words, is a 'practical Marxist-feminist-deconstructionist' applying feminist, Marxist, and some postmodernist ideas to society, thought, and the past. Hence, this post will focus on both 'Left-wing' and the 'Other' history. Can the Subaltern Speak? is a complicated text and by applying both deconstructionism and Marxism it can become confusing. Today we will look at Can the Subaltern Speak? and discuss why Spivak wrote it, her ideas, and the issues she arises from the text.

What is Postcolonialism and Subalterns?

Antonio Gramsci

Postcolonial thought can be found in a variety of different subjects including philosophy, literature, and history. I would consider myself heavily inspired by postcolonial schools of thought. Postcolonialism aims to analyse and criticise colonial and imperial thoughts, and their impacts on culture and society in colonised societies. In particular, postcolonialism has looked anew at certain givens in thought, such as rationality and logic. We often see a rejection of Enlightenment thought, to certain degrees - the Enlightenment emerged in a European worldview to explain Europe, something which cannot properly map onto other societies. Dipesh Chakrabarty, as an example, criticised Henry Reynolds for calling Walter Arthur as 'the first Aboriginal nationalist' as it was applying a Eurocentric idea to a culture who would not viewed it in that sense. Postcolonial studies have produced many major figures including Frantz Fanon and Edward Said. Said's Orientalist theory has been very influential in this - Orientalism saw the intellectual creation of Orient by the Occident during colonialism. This polarisation created through misunderstanding or power dynamics 'the Oriental becomes more Orient, the Westerner becomes more Western'. You may notice similarities with postmodernist thought and you would be correct in noticing this - postcolonialism is heavily inspired by postmodernism. Marxism has played a great influence in postcolonial thought - Fanon, Said, and Spivak were all inspired by Marx himself. However, postcolonial thought has criticised complete application of Marxism to colonial theory. Again, Marx and Engels wrote in a very European context and their ideas were born in a European context. There is one particular aspect of Marxist thought which postcolonialism truly embraced - the subaltern.

Edward Said, one of the major postcolonial theorists

As you could probably see I am very influenced by the idea of the subaltern - hence why half of this series is described as the 'Other'. One of the major theoretical forces behind the subaltern was Italian communist Antonio Gramsci - he is perhaps one of the most influential Marxists with his ideas inspiring Said, Spivak, Fanon, Zygmunt Bauman, and Eric Hobsbawm to just name a few. Gramsci had been incarcerated by Mussolini's fascist regime and 'subaltern' was used in his prison notes as code for 'proletariat'. The subaltern is a group or population socially, politically, and geographically excluded from hegemonic power structures in society. As a result, we saw attempts to give voice to the subaltern including 'history told from bottom'. Marxist historians especially focused on Gramsci's subaltern concept - a good example is E.P. Thompson's The Making of the English Working Class (1963). The subaltern became integral to postcolonial studies - what better way to break from imperial history by studying history through the voices of the colonised? One of the major contributions to this was Subaltern Studies - a series of essays from 1979 to 1980 edited by Ranajit Guha aiming to study history from below. However, this is where Spivak comes in.

Problems with Subaltern Studies and Postcolonialism

Most of the criticisms of Subaltern Studies and postcolonialism will be discussed when we look at Spivak's essay itself, so to avoid repetition we'll only look at some of the criticisms. A key issue is that, especially with Subaltern Studies, attempts at discussing history from below often face issues about who is classed as an 'other'. Let's use a contemporary example. In the United States today there are many groups who can be classed as an 'other' - does a straight, cis, white male who is working class as a subaltern, or does a white, cis, gay man? Race and ethnicity in a country like the US are clear indicators of being subalterns but we face issues with this - different races face different forms of marginalisation, and factors such as class, sexuality, sex, and gender can impact this as well. This remains complicated in colonial settings. To avoid relying on imperial sources many postcolonial historians and theorists relied on indigenous sources, however, most of these sources were written by an indigenous elite. Colonialism was not simply European colonisers against colonised peoples - a local elite in many areas served as mediators between colonisers and the colonised. Dipesh Chakrabarty argued that elites and dominant groups could be classed as subalterns as: they were subjected to colonisation, could be subalterns in other regions, or could have subaltern pasts. However, by focusing solely on them early postcolonialism ended repeating elite ideas - just a colonised elite. There were other issues. For example, in Orientalism Edward Said focused on elite Western culture in creating Orientalist views - ranging from arts to political debates to Shakespeare - and not non-elite culture in forming Orientalism. Furthermore, Said had a habit of stripping agency away from the subaltern - Orientalism was thrust upon them universally. Said has escaped harshest of critiques as it was evident that he was aware of his own flaws.

Can the Subaltern Speak?
In 1983 Spivak wrote her criticism of Eurocentrism, postcolonialism and Subaltern Studies. Spivak argued that in both academia and postcolonialism there was a continued desire to have Europe, and European thought, remain the subject of discussion. Written records and indigenous intellectual texts were central to postcolonialism, but as a result it reduced other forms of indigenous thought to the periphery - other forms of thought were described as 'myth' or 'folklore' and thus discarded. The transparency of the intellectual was taken as a given - Sanskrit sources in India were produced by Brahmans who wanted to use discourse to their advantage. Instead, we have to undertake 'measuring silences'. Unorganised peasant labour, subsistence farmers, tribes, and communities of zero workers in India had no access to this. The issue becomes worse when discussing women 'the international division of labour, the subject of exploitation cannot know and speak the text of female exploitation...The woman is doubly in the shadow'. There were also issues of homogenising the subaltern which Spivak wished to critique. She reiterated what Guha stated that 'The same class or element which was dominant in one area...could be among the dominated in another'. India's colonial experience was different to that of Africa which was different to Latin America. Even in India colonialism was felt differently - Kashmir differed to Bengal which differed to the Punjab, and varied further based on ethnicity, gender, caste, class, and whether you lived in a town, city, or the country. Despite this, European aspects of thought were applied to come to terms with this so we have a double bind of applying European thought to a colonised setting, and using an indigenous elite. Spivak argued that 'radical practice should attend to this double session of representations rather than reintroduce the individual subject through totalizing concepts of power and desire'. Furthermore, she criticised postcolonial historians for having a knee-jerk reaction when looking at society and culture in pre-colonial, or colonial, settings. 'A nostalgia for lost origins can be detrimental to the exploration of social realities within the critique of imperialism'. Imperialism's legacies continue to plague India today - religious intolerance, intense misogyny, caste discrimination, and racism. These were made worse by British rule, but Spivak criticised postcolonial historians for romanticising a past implying that they were invented by Britain. Instead, Britain exploited these issues in order to rule.

A British depiction of suttee

Spivak particularly wanted to write the essay based on the historiography concerning one particular event. Among high-caste Hindus when a husband died his wife was immolated on his funeral pyre in a custom called sati, or suttee. Very few cases of sati actually happened - between 1800 and independence in 1947 there were around 100 cases out of a population of tens of millions - but the British East India Company (EIC) viewed it as an endemic issue. In 1829 the EIC banned the custom, and there would be several more attempts to ban it. Spivak's description of this has now become the phrase to describe justifications of colonialism: White men are saving brown women from brown men. Colonial and imperial historians repeated this justification - even when they viewed empire negatively it was seen as being needed to eradicate sati. Postcolonial historians instead looked at indigenous sources which painted a different image - women apparently wanted to immolate themselves. They wanted to keep up tradition so willingly immolated themselves. However, Spivak highlighted one key issue - both sources were not written by women. 'One diagnosis of female free will is substituted for another'. Women's voices, voices of the subaltern, were sidelined in favour of male voices - whether it be from the East India Company or from Brahmans. Spivak pessimistically concludes stating that 'The subaltern cannot speak'. The subaltern was always the object, not the subject, of study. We lose the voice of the subaltern consequently.

Legacies
Gayatri Spivak's essay greatly influenced postcolonial thought - so much so she is now seen as one of the 'founders of postcolonialism', something Spivak has refused to fully accept. Nevertheless, we have seen postcolonial history trying to avoid, or acknowledging, the over-reliance on indigenous elite sources. Increased engagement with oral stories has allowed engagement with subaltern voices - historians have managed to interview Scheduled Castes and women about their experiences during the Partition of India in 1947. Unfortunately, this is an impossibility, or a near impossibility, for discussing women's views of sati. Spivak never offered answers, just questions. It is something that anyone studying history or looking at politics has to take into account - how do we allow the subaltern to speak?

The sources I have used are as follows:
-Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak, 'Can the Subaltern Speak?', in Cary Nelson and Lawrence Grossberg, (eds.), Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture, (London: 1988), 271-314
-Robert Young, Postcolonialism: An Historical Introduction, (Malden: 2016)
-Rochona Majumdar, Writing Postcolonial History, (London: 2010)
-Edward Said, Orientalism, (London: 1978)
-Vivek Chibber, Postcolonial Theory and the Specter of Capital, (London: 2013)
-Dipesh Chaktrabarty, Provincializing Europe: Postcolonial Thought and Historical Difference, (New Delhi: 2000)
-Quintin Hoare and Geoffrey Nowell Smith, (eds.), Selections from the Prison Notebooks of Antonio Gramsci, (London: 1973)

Thank you for reading and please leave any thoughts down below. For future blog updates please see our Facebook or catch me on Twitter @LewisTwiby. For other Left-Wing and 'Other' history we have a page for you to check out here. 

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

2017 and History

Another year has passed, 2017 has come to a close, and we wait to see what 2018 holds. 2017, however, has seen the anniversaries of several important historical events, and many other events which can be explained through history. For 2017's final blog post I thought it would be a good opportunity to look at historical anniversaries and some of 2017's headlines to see how they fit in world history. Due to the amount of things which have happened over the last year I cannot talk about everything and I'll only talk of events which I feel that I can (somewhat) accurately explain. As my specialty are the nineteenth and twentieth centuries most of what I'll discuss will be from these two centuries.

The Reformation 500 Years On

Luther and the Reformation

The first event which we're going to look at is the Reformation. On October 31, 1517 Martin Luther supposedly nailed his criticisms of the practices of the Catholic Church - his 95 theses - on the door of the Wittenberg Church - although it is far likelier that he sent them to prominent bishops and theologians. This started the split between the Western Christian church between Catholics and Protestants. A detailed look at the Reformation can be found in one of my recent blog posts here. Luther was not the only critic of the Church to emerge. In Switzerland Huldrych Zwingli and John Calvin emerged, in England Henry VIII formed his own movement when the pope refused to annul his marriage to Catherine of Aragon, and across Europe people sided with either the pope or the reformers. Despite how long ago the Reformation was it still greatly shapes the world we live in. For example, several historians have argued that the Wars of Religion helped lay the groundwork for secularization. The many wars, (such as the Thirty Years War, 1618-48, and the French Wars of Religion, 1562-98), forced a compromise between the warring factions. Limited religious tolerance was offered in the peace treaties which ended the wars; although of course it was only tolerance for the religious sects which fought one another, some of the worst persecution of Jews until the Second World War in Western and Central Europe occurred during the Wars of Religion. In Britain the wars resulted in the strengthening of the parliament, first with Cromwell's rule and later with the 'Glorious Revolution' of 1688/9. In many areas of Europe, and the world, the Catholic/Protestant divide is still very prevalent and shapes thought. For example, Northern Irish politics is extremely divided on sectarian lines with the DUP - who are currently in coalition with the Conservative party - running on a very strict Protestant platform. 

India's Two Anniversaries

India witnessed two traumatic anniversaries this year which greatly influenced the forming of today's India. The first was the 1857 Indian Rebellion - although you may also see it referred to as the First War of Indian Independence, Indian Mutiny, the Indian Uprising, or Great Rebellion. For years resentment towards British, and the East India Company which was ruling India. 1857 the resentment spilled over. The East India Company (and Britain) had been using Indians in the army and had introduced a new rifle, the Enfield, which required the user to bite a greased cartridge. A rumor abounded that beef and pork fat were being used which led to many Indian soldiers to refuse to use the rifle. As a result on May 9 the commanding officer of the Third Bengal Light Cavalry in Meerut sentenced 85 troopers to ten years' hard labor and publicly humiliated them. This caused a widespread rebellion from Indian soldiers in Northern India which spread to the Indian masses. Some soldiers around Delhi declared the aged Mughal emperor, Bahadur Shah, emperor of all of India. Indian soldiers massacred British citizens when they took towns, cities, and barricades which enraged British troops who committed bloody atrocities against Indians in revenge. By November 1, 1858 the rebellion had been put down costing the lives of up to 806,000 through massacres, battles, disease and famine. Despite early victories the rebellion was defeated for several reasons. The East India Company had three armies - the Bombay, Madras and Bengal - and only the Bengal army mutinied. In fact, some parts of the Bombay and Madras armies were used to fight the rebels. As the Bengal army had helped conquer a Sikh princely state Sikhs were widely used to put down the rebellion in the Punjab. The 1857 Rebellion was only confined to northern India, but if it had happened across India there was a strong possibility that British rule could have ended in India. The rebels were also very divided. When soldiers declared that Bahadur Shah's power had been restored this deterred Hindus, Christians and Sikhs from supporting the rebellion, (the Mughals were a Muslim power). With a divided rebellion it prevented it from being a success. Following the Uprising Indian-British relations were changed. The brutal crushing of the rebellion greatly soured relations and it remained prevalent in imperial (and indigenous) records for the following century. The East India Company was dissolved, Victoria made Empress, the three armies were merged into one, and Indians were declared subjects. Declaring Indians subjects also raised questions for many Indians. Many asked, if we are subjects why do we lack the same rights as the British? Indian nationalism would grow exponentially after 1857.

Refugees after Partition

This brings us to the second anniversary: the Partition of India. Britain continued with the East India Company's policy of divide-and-rule which set different ethnicities, religions and castes against one another instead of creating a united force against the British. More can be found about on my post on Partition here so I shall try and give a brief summary. Thanks to divide-and-rule policies different religions formed their own nationalist, or reform, movements. Two which emerged were the Indian National Congress and the Muslim League. Mohandas Gandhi became involved with Congress and turned it into a mass movement attracting millions of supporters. Slowly the movements managed to obtain limited constitutional reforms from the British. However, due to Hindu domination of Congress (something accidentally caused by Gandhi) many Muslims feared Hindu domination in a post-independence India, including Muhammad Ali Jinnah of the Muslim League. In 1933 nationalist Choudhry Rahmat Ali coined the name Pakistan and Muslim activists championed this idea. Until recently it had been believed that Jinnah drove a wedge between Muslims and Hindus leading to Partition, but recent historiography, such as by Ayesha Jalal, has argued that it was a desperate attempt to get compensation out of Congress. Following the Second World War British rule in India collapsed so Britain opted to haphazardly divide India using out of date maps and censuses in August 1947. This left millions of people trapped on the wrong side of the border. A refugee crises emerged as massacres and rapes took place in an attempt to ensure areas were part of India or Pakistan. Around 2% of India's population remained refugees in 1951. This division has drastically shaped the Indian subcontinent since 1947.

Israel/Palestine

On December 6 Donald Trump recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, something which has been vetoed by the UN, causing another wave of protests across Palestine and the world. This came a month after the centenary of the Balfour Declaration which was signed by British Foreign Secretary Arthur Balfour. This can largely be seen as the event which set the Israeli-Palestinian conflict into motion. During the late-nineteenth century nationalism was widespread across Europe and the Middle East. Discrimination of Jews was prevalent across Europe so Jewish intellectuals, primarily in Central and Eastern Europe, thought of an idea called Zionism. If Jews were to stop being persecution they needed their own homeland, and that they had a homeland before but had been expelled by the Romans. They wanted to reform Israel (as a republic not a kingdom) in Palestine. They also assumed that the Arabs would accept them being a fellow Semitic people, and that they would want 'civilizing' by Europeans (Social Darwinism was very prevalent in the 1800s). Especially thanks to the intense antisemitism of the Dreyfus Affair - where a blatantly innocent French Jewish officer Alfred Dreyfus was wrongfully convicted of being a German spy - support for Zionism grew. At this early stage the proposed Israel was meant to be a state for Jews - the Balfour Declaration even uses the phrase 'national homeland for the Jews' - not a Jewish state. In 1917 Arthur Balfour declared that Britain would help form a Zionist state despite opposition from Palestinians, non-Zionist Jews, and the fact that Britain had already promised Palestine to Hussein bin Ali to be part of the pan-Arab state. Palestine was declared a British mandate and Britain implemented divide-and-rule policies in the region. Eventually, in 1948 two states were meant to be formed: Israel and Palestine. In the first Arab-Israeli War - sometimes called the Israeli War of Independence or the Nakba - saw Palestine divided between its neighbors. Following the 1967 Six Day War Israel annexed the West Bank and Jerusalem. For political reasons it was largely agreed to recognize Tel Aviv as Israel's capital and Ramallah as Palestine's, or West Jerusalem as Israel's and East Jerusalem as Palestine's, to respect both Israel and Palestine. By recognizing Jerusalem as being Israel's capital this ignores Palestine's claims.

You may be hearing on the news about talks of a Third Intifada. There were two intifadas - the first 1987 to 1991 and the second 2000-5 - which were periods of intense Palestinian uprisings against Israel. Some have argued that Trump's relocation of the embassy to Jerusalem and the IDF's brutal crackdown on Palestinian protesters may cause a Third Intifada.

Climate Change

This summer saw some of the most intense climate events in recent years which included Hurricane Harvey; Irma; floods in Niger, India, and Nepal; intense wildfires in California; and cold winters across the northern hemisphere. These intense bouts of intense weather have been attributed to climate change caused by global warming. Not too long ago I wrote about the Little Ice Age which brought intense climate change caused by a drop in global temperatures. Among these were hailstorms which wiped out crops, frozen lakes in June, and even the Thames freezing over. Understanding the Little Ice Age helps us understand how we can face climate change. Geoffrey Parker in particular has written about how adverse weather and climate affected societies worldwide in the 'Crisis of the Seventeenth Century.' In China the Ming were bloodily overthrown; religious wars ravaged Europe; succession wars hit the Mughals, Ottomans and the Kongo; and famines, floods, and droughts plagued all the world. Although bad weather did not cause these conflicts it made these conflicts worse. As humans continue contributing to climate change by looking at the Little Ice Age we can understand how to cope with global warming.

Centenary of Russian Revolutions

Lenin and the Masses

In 1917 Russia saw two revolutions: the February and the October. These two revolutions shook both Russia and the world. For over a century Russia had been trying to slowly reform itself. In 1905 a revolution caused by frustration over defeat in the Russo-Japanese War caused the creation of a parliament, the Duma, although it was extremely weak and gave the tsar large amounts of power. The First World War brought issues to a head. On International Women's Day Social Revolutionaries handed pamphlets to women in Petrograd (St Petersburg) waiting in line for bread. This escalated into a protest and strike, and eventually into a revolution which caused the overthrowing of the tsar. The new Russian republic began many widespread reforms - including emancipating Jews and women - but it soon became unpopular. Many in Russia, especially the peasantry, wanted a clean break with tsarist Russia, different nationalities wanted increased autonomy, and many wanted an end to the war. Then the Bolsheviks rose to prominence. Under the leadership of Vladimir Lenin the Bolsheviks were originally a faction of the Social Revolutionaries deeply inspired by Marxist theory. The Bolsheviks and Lenin promising peace, bread, land and autonomy struck a chord with soldiers, urban workers, peasants and some minorities. Following the crushing of the Bolsheviks during the July Offensive and the arrest of certain leaders, including Leon Trotsky, sympathy for the Bolsheviks rose. Eventually by November (October in Russia which was still using the Julian calendar), the Bolsheviks under Lenin rose up and seized the Winter Palace in Petrograd. Lenin, walking into the Duma, declared 'We shall now proceed to construct the socialist order.' Thus the most influential revolution of the twentieth century took place inspiring millions around the world to do the same from Mexico to China. Many people today are influenced by Marxist theory - including myself, although I am more influenced by Rosa Luxemburg and Antonio Gramsci than Lenin and Trotsky - and the October Revolution helped contribute to this. Although clearly bias I would highly recommend Trotsky's own account, called The History of the Russian Revolution, which is a gripping read detailing the events of both revolutions.

Zimbabwe

Mugabe

In November long-term president of Zimbabwe, Robert Mugabe, was forced to resign after being in power since 1980. Earlier I wrote about Mugabe if you are interested so I'll do a brief summary here. The prime reason why Mugabe was forced to resign by the military was his replacement of Emmerson Mnangwa with his wife, Grace Mugabe. However, Mugabe remains popular in Zimbabwe, and the opposition leaders and military have stated that because of his legacy they chose to go through legal procedures to oust him. Mugabe was one of the key figures in the War of Independence against the minority, white-rule government with his party, ZANU-PF, being incredibly popular with many Zimbabweans. The first few years of Mugabe's premiership were very well received and if he had resigned in the mid-1980s he may even have been popular in the West; after all he was even knighted by the Queen. It is quite telling with the North Atlantic viewpoint that Mugabe was only criticized for his treatment of white farmers in Europe and the USA, and not his period of ethnic violence called the Gukurahundi. One thing to note about the recent resignation is something which has been prevalent in Zimbabwean politics since 1980: the treatment of veterans. Many critics of Mugabe have noted his abandonment of veterans of the independence war leaving many with no job prospects. Mnangwa is also a veteran so his replacement by Grace Mugabe was seen as an even greater affront.

Japan and Korea

Throughout 2017 North Korea has been in the news for testing nuclear missiles. Although this has partially been thanks to Trump's bellicose rhetoric, including this tweet which I thought was satire by The Onion when he was in Vietnam. You may have noticed that Pyongyang has been firing missiles over Hokkaido. We all know by now why Korea is divided so I thought it would be more interesting to look at why there is hostility between North Korea and Japan. When Japan started to get involved in international politics after 1868 they felt threatened by European and American imperialism so began a course of imperialism themselves. They soon turned on the small Kingdom of Korea to the north; first they muscled China out of the way and began influencing Korean politics to prevent Russian interference. Japanese thinkers believed that Asia had to unite, but only the Japanese were capable of uniting Asians. In 1910 they annexed Korea and began a process of 'Japanizing' Koreans. From 1910 to 1945 Japanese politicians started implementing policies to 'Japanify' Korea including banning Korean in Japan; banning Korean dress; attempting to replace Korean names with Japanese ones; and having Japanese landowners buy land in Korea. I would highly recommend watching the Korean romantic thriller The Handmaiden to see this in effect. During the Second World War Koreans were forcibly conscripted into the Japanese army, forced to work in factories producing arms, and Korean women were forced to be 'comfort women' for Japanese soldiers. Korea was split after 1945 between the communist DPRK (Democratic People's Republic of Korea) under Kim Il Sung, and the capitalist ROK (Republic of Korea) under Syngman Rhee. The legacies of Japanese rule, and a lack of apology for said rule, has meant that animosity continues to pervade not only DPRK-Japanese relations but also ROK-Japanese ones. 

Shinzo Abe

This year Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe called a snap election, and unlike the UK's snap election which caused Theresa May to lose her majority, Abe's Liberal Democratic party swept the board. The DPRK helped with this victory. After Japan's defeat in the Second World War the Allied powers wanted to make sure that Japan could not threaten them again. On May 3, 1947 (another anniversary) Japan had a new constitution implemented where Article 9 dissolved the Japanese military and forbade Japan from declaring war. Instead Japan would have a Self-Defense Force in case a country declared war on it. This was largely accepted by everyone in Japan: the left as it made pacifism in the constitution itself while the right liked it as it let them focus on getting foreign investment to fuel capitalist growth. Abe ran on a platform of reversing Article 9 where in the light of North Korean missile tests made Japanese voters sympathetic to. Whether it will be passed we'll find out in 2018.

Something in the USA

Much has happened in the USA this year. We could compare Trump's travel bans to the Chinese Exclusion Act and anti-immigration acts; how the Confederate statues link to the South's dark past where millions were enslaved; or how Trump's banning of transgendered soldiers and talks at prominent homophobic events links to the LGBTQ+ community's struggle for rights. We could also compare the Democrats emphasis on Russian interference in the election and anti-Russian hysteria to that of Cold War hysteria (I've seen a few people suggest that Bernie Sanders and Jill Stein being Russian stooges), or how the USA has also interfered in elections (including the 1996 Russian election). However, I want to focus on this one giant mess which Trump caused.

Again, I thought this initially was a joke

In November at an event honoring the Navajo Code Breakers Trump made a Pocahontas joke about Democratic senator Elizabeth Warren in front of a painting of Andrew Jackson. I must admit part of me died hearing that, and there's lots to unpack here. First off Pocahontas. Pocahontas has been deeply involved with America's cultural heritage, but she has become a figure of myth. Pocahontas was the daughter of Wahunsenacawh (called Powhatan by Europeans), the paramount chief of Tsenacommacah. English settlers had arrived in Virginia and by 1607 conflicts over land had caused tension between the settlers and Powhatan. In American lore Pocahontas stopped her father from executing explorer John Smith by jumping over his body before the killing blow. Historians believe this to be fabricated, especially as in his diaries this happens several times. Pocahontas was captured by the settlers in 1613 where she converted to Christianity, we are not entirely sure though if she was forced to or not. In order to create peace Pocahontas, at the age of 17, was married off to tobacco planter John Rolfe in 1614. Rolfe seemed to genuinely love Pocahontas (who went by the name Rebecca) and her accounts seem to suggest that she respected but did not love him. Pocahontas was eventually taken to Britain where she was paraded around as a 'civilized savage' (a precursor to what would happen during later European empires in the nineteenth century). She would never again see Virginia; aged either 20 or 21 she would pass away to be buried at Gravesend.

We have to go to the nineteenth century to understand why it is vastly inappropriate to have a painting of Andrew Jackson when honoring the Navajo Code Breakers. Jackson was president from 1829 to 1837 and was very much like Trump: brash and racist. Other than supporting slavery Jackson loathed Native Americans; while fighting the British during the War of 1812 forced the Creek to give up 23 million acres of land to the United States. In 1816 he would also lead a campaign against the Seminole. Years later he brought his racial hatred with him to the White House. Throughout his presidency he had around 70 treaties made which forced Native Americans off of their land. Perhaps the most famous was the 1830 Indian Removal Land which allowed the president the ability to create treaties with the Five Civilized Tribes in the Southern US. This began the Trial of Tears where thousands of Native Americans were forced from their land to go to Oklahoma, mostly on foot. It is difficult to estimate but almost 20,000 died through famine, disease or exhaustion during the Trial of Tears. Just over 16,500 Cherokee were evicted from their land where between 2,000 and 6,000 died along the way. 

Star Wars

Star Wars fans in 1977

To finish this post I thought it would be best to talk about something on a lighter note. Recently The Last Jedi was released, the same year as the fortieth anniversary of Star Wars. This franchise perhaps the most influential film franchise of all time. Using groundbreaking effects mixing Westerns with samurai movies George Lucas brought us an epic which revolutionized sci-fi and the movie industry. Other than movies Star Wars has spawned toys, comics, TV shows, video games, and even a Christmas special. Star Wars is just as popular in 2017 as it was in 1977.

Thank you for reading and I hope you enjoyed this post. For future blog posts please check out our Facebook or catch me on Twitter @LewisTwiby. If you want to discuss any other of 2017's events please feel free to leave a comment. Have a Happy New Year!