British India
The British Raj (known from
1911 as the
Indian Empire) was the period during which most of the
Indian subcontinent, or present-day
India,
Bangladesh,
Pakistan, and
Myanmar, were under the colonial authority of the
British Empire (
Undivided India). Since the independence of these countries their pre-independent existence has been loosely termed
British India, although prior to Independence that term referred only to those portions of the subcontinent under direct rule by the British administration in Delhi and previously Calcutta. Much of the territory under British sway during this time was not directly ruled by the British, but were nominally independent
Princely States which were directly under the rule of the
Maharajas,
Rajas, Thakurs and Nawabs who entered into treaties as sovereigns with the British monarch as their feudal superior.
Aden was part of "British India" from
1839, as was
Burma from
1886; both became separate crown colonies of the
British Empire in
1937. It lasted from
1858, when the rule of the
British East India Company was transferred to the Crown, until
1947, when pre-independence India was
partitioned into two sovereign states, India and Pakistan. Although
Sri Lanka (then Ceylon) is peripheral to the Indian subcontinent, it is not counted part of the Raj, as it was ruled as a
Crown Colony from London rather than by the Viceroy of India as a part of the
Indian Empire.
French India and
Portuguese India consisted of small coastal enclaves governed by
France and
Portugal, respectively; they were integrated into India after Indian independence.
|
The flag of British India |
On
December 31 1600, Queen
Elizabeth I of England granted a royal charter to the
British East India Company to carry out trade with the East. Company ships first arrived in India in
1608, docking at
Surat in modern-day
Gujarat. Four years later, British traders defeated the
Portuguese at the
Battle of Swally, gaining the favour of the
Mughal emperor
Jahangir in the process. In
1615, King
James I sent
Sir Thomas Roe as his ambassador to Jahangir's court, and a commercial treaty was concluded in which the Mughals allowed the Company to build trading posts in India in return for goods from Europe. The Company traded in such commodities as
cotton,
silk,
saltpeter,
indigo, and
tea.
By the mid-
1600s, the Company had established trading posts or "factories" in major Indian cities, such as
Bombay,
Calcutta, and
Madras in addition to their first factory at Surat (built in
1612). In
1670,
King Charles II granted the company the right to acquire territory, raise an army, mint its own money, and exercise legal jurisdiction in areas under its control.
By the last decade of the 17th century, the Company was arguably its own "nation" on the Indian subcontinent, possessing considerable military might and ruling three presidencies.
The British first established a territorial foothold in the Indian subcontinent when Company-funded soldiers commanded by
Robert Clive defeated the
Bengali
Nawab Siraj Ud Daulah at the
Battle of Plassey in
1757.
Bengal's riches were expropriated, the East India Company monopolised Bengali trade and Bengal became a British
protectorate directly under its rule. Bengali farmers and craftsmen were obliged to render their labour for minimal remuneration while their collective tax burden increased greatly. As a consequence, the
famine of 1769 to 1773 cost the lives of 10 million Bengalis. A similar catastrophe occurred almost a century later, after Britain had extended its rule across the Indian subcontinent, when 40 million Indians perished from
famine amidst the collapse of India's indigenous industries.
Building the Raj: British expansion across India
The Regulating Act of
1773 that was passed by the
British Parliament asserted
Whitehall's ultimate control of the company. It also established the post of governor-general of India, the first occupant of which was
Warren Hastings. Further acts, such as the Charter Acts of
1813 and
1833, further defined the relationship of the Company and the British government.
At the turn of the 19th century, Governor-General
Lord Wellesley began expanding the Company's domain on a large scale, defeating
Tippoo Sultan (also spelled Tipu Sultan), annexing
Mysore in southern India, and removing all
French influence from the subcontinent. In the mid-19th century, Governor-General
Lord Dalhousie launched perhaps the Company's most ambitious expansion, defeating the
Sikhs in the
Anglo-Sikh Wars (and annexing
Punjab with the exception of the Phulkian States) and subduing
Burma in the
Second Burmese War. He also justified the takeover of small princely states such as
Satara,
Sambalpur,
Jhansi, and
Nagpur by way of the
doctrine of lapse, which permitted the Company to annex any princely state whose ruler had died without a male heir. The annexation of
Oudh in
1856 proved to be the Company's final territorial acquisition, as the following year saw the boiling over of Indian grievances toward the so-called "Company Raj".
The Indian Rebellion of 1857 or "First War of Indian Independence"
(previously called the "Indian Mutiny", from a strictly British perspective)
On
May 10,
1857, soldiers of the
British Indian Army (known as "sepoys," from Urdu/Persian
sipaahi or
sepaahi = "soldier"), drawn from the native
Hindu and
Muslim population, mutinied in
Meerut, a cantonment eighty kilometres northeast of
Delhi. The rebels marched to Delhi to offer their services to the
Mughal emperor, and soon much of north and central
India was plunged into a year-long insurrection against the English East India Company. Many native regiments and Indian kingdoms joined the revolt, while other Indian units and Indian kingdoms backed the English commanders and the
HEIC.
Causes of the rebellion
The uprising, which seriously threatened British rule in India, was undoubtedly the culmination of mounting Indian resentment toward British social and political policies over many decades. Until the rebellion, the British had succeeded in suppressing numerous riots and "tribal" wars or in accommodating them through concessions, but two factors â€" one a trend and the other a single event â€" triggered the violent explosion of wrath in 1857.
The trend was the policy of annexation pursued by Governor-General Lord Dalhousie, based mainly on his "Doctrine of Lapse", which held that
princely states would be merged into
company-ruled territory in case a ruler died without direct heir. This denied the native rulers the right to adopt an heir in such an event; adoption had been pervasive practise in the Hindu states hitherto, sanctioned both by religion and by secular tradition. The states annexed under this doctrine included such major kingdoms as
Satara,
Thanjavur, Sambhal, Jhansi, Jetpur, Udaipur, and Baghat. Additionally, the
company had annexed, without pretext, the rich kingdoms of
Sind in
1843 and
Oudh in
1856, the latter a wealthy princely state that generated huge revenue and represented a vestige of
Mughal authority. This greed for land, especially in a group of small-town and middle-class British merchants, whose
parvenu background was increasingly evident and galling to Indians of rank, had alienated a large section of the landed and ruling
aristocracy, who were quick to take up the cause of evicting the merchants once the revolt was kindled.
The spark that lit the fire was the result of a very convincing, though untrue, rumour about a British blunder in using new cartridges for the
Pattern 1853 Enfield rifle that were greased with animal fat, rumoured to now be a combination of pig-fat and cow-fat. This was offensive to the religious beliefs of both Muslim and Hindu sepoys respectively, who refused to use the cartridges and, under provocation, finally mutinied against their British officers.
Course of the rebellion
The rebellion soon engulfed much of North India, including
Oudh and various areas that had lately passed from the control of
Maratha princes to the company. The unprepared British were terrified, without replacements for the casualties. The rebellion inflicted havoc on Indians and the community suffered humiliation and triumph in battle as well, although the final outcome was victory for the British. Isolated mutinies also occurred at military posts in the centre of the subcontinent. The last major sepoy rebels surrendered on June 21,
1858, at
Gwalior (
Madhya Pradesh), one of the principal centres of the revolt. A final battle was fought at
Sirwa Pass on
May 21 1859, and the defeated rebels fled into
Nepal.
Although the rebellious sepoys fought with great bravery, the British were victorious due to superior leadership and organisation, as well as the fact that the majority of the sepoys remained loyal to the British. The Sikh sepoys were the most reliable of all the native troops, partly because they were not from the region of the mutinity and had no affinity to the local region and thus were somewhat suspicious of the mutineers. Another reason was that they had a long tradition of military service, such that they felt bound to follow the orders of those to whom they had pledged their service.
During the rebellion, Gurkhas fought on the British side. The
2nd Gurkha Rifles (The Sirmoor Rifles) defended
Hindu Rao's house for over three months, losing 327 out of 490 men. The 60th Rifles (later the
Royal Green Jackets) fought alongside the Sirmoor Rifles and were so impressed that following hostilities they insisted 2nd Gurkhas be awarded the honours of adopting their distinctive rifle green uniforms with scarlet edgings and rifle regiment traditions and that they should hold the title of riflemen rather than sepoys. Twelve Nepalese regiments also took part in the relief of
Lucknow under the command of Shri Teen (3) Maharaja Maharana
Jung Bahadur of Nepal.
Most areas ruled by native princes remained largely untouched by the rebellion; in particular,
Rajasthan and the
maratha states of central
India, with the exception of
Gwalior, remained calm.
Punjab was another major area loyal to the British throughout the rebellion, and the main source of supplies and fighting men for them. Significantly, the rebellion also did not spread to other parts of the subcontinent, most notably the south, which was a bastion of British power.
There has been much subsequent debate about the correct labelling of this event in the history of the Raj. Although it has gone down in the imperial annals as "the Indian Mutiny" or
the Sepoy Rebellion, many modern-day Indians, and others besides, feel that this is an inappropriate term for what they see as the first serious independence movement in India. The spontaneous and widespread rebellion later fired the imagination of the nationalists who would debate the most effective method of protest against British rule. For them, the rebellion represented the first Indian attempt at gaining independence. In 2005, a film was made about this Indian uprising â€" 'The Rising'
Post-rebellion developments
The rebellion was a major turning point in the history of modern
India. In May
1858, the British exiled Emperor
Bahadur Shah Zafar II (r. 1837â€"57) to
Rangoon,
Burma (now
Yangon,
Myanmar), after executing most of his family, thus formally liquidating the
Mughal Empire.
Bahadur Shah Zafar, known as the Poet King, contributed some of
Urdu's most beautiful poetry, with the underlying theme of the freedom struggle. The Emperor was not allowed to return and died in solitary confinement in 1862. The Emperor's three sons, also involved in the War of Independence, were arrested and beheaded at the Khooni Derwaza (Blood Gate) in
Delhi by Major Hudson of the British Army, and their heads were then put up for display at the Delhi Court.
Cultural and religious centres were closed down, properties and estates were confiscated. At the same time, the British abolished the
British East India Company and replaced it with direct rule under the British Crown.
In proclaiming the new direct-rule policy to "the Princes, Chiefs, and Peoples of India",
Queen Victoria (who was given the title
Empress of India in 1877) promised equal treatment under
British law, but Indian mistrust of British rule had become a legacy of the
1857 rebellion.
Many existing economic and revenue policies remained virtually unchanged in the post-1857 period, but several administrative modifications were introduced, beginning with the creation in
London of a
cabinet post, the
Secretary of State for India. The
governor-general (called
viceroy when acting as representative to the nominally sovereign "
princely states" or "
native states"), headquartered in
Calcutta, ran the administration in India, assisted by executive and legislative councils. Beneath the governor-general were the governors of
Provinces of India, who held power over the division and district officials, who formed the lower rungs of the
Indian Civil Service. For decades the Indian Civil Service was the exclusive preserve of the British-born, as were the superior ranks in such other professions as law and medicine. The British administrators were imbued with a sense of duty in ruling India and were rewarded with good salaries, high status, and opportunities for promotion. Not until the 1910s did the British reluctantly permit a few Indians into their cadre as the number of English-educated Indians rose steadily.
The
Viceroy of India announced in 1858 that the government would honour former treaties with princely states and renounced the "
Doctrine of Lapse", whereby the East India Company had annexed territories of rulers who died without male heirs. About 40 percent of Indian territory and 20â€"25 percent of the population remained under the control of 562 princes notable for their religious (
Islamic,
Hindu,
Sikh and other) and ethnic diversity. Their propensity for pomp and ceremony became proverbial, while their domains, varying in size and wealth, lagged behind socio-political transformations that took place elsewhere in British-controlled India.
A more thorough re-organisation was effected in the constitution of army and government finances. Shocked by the extent of solidarity among Indian soldiers during the rebellion, the government separated the army into the three presidencies.
The Indian Councils Act of 1861 restored legislative powers to the presidencies, which had been given exclusively to the governor-general by the Charter Act of 1833.
British attitudes toward Indians shifted from relative openness to insularity and
xenophobia, even against those with comparable background and achievement as well as loyalty. British families and their servants lived in cantonments at a distance from Indian settlements. Private clubs where the British gathered for social interaction became symbols of exclusivity and snobbery that refused to disappear decades after the British had left India. In
1883 the government of India attempted to remove race barriers in criminal jurisdictions by introducing a bill empowering Indian judges to adjudicate offences committed by
Europeans. Public protests and editorials in the British press, however, forced the viceroy
George Robinson, First Marquess of Ripon, (who served from
1880 to
1884), to capitulate and modify the bill drastically. The
Bengali "Hindu intelligentsia" learned a valuable political lesson from this "white mutiny": the effectiveness of well-orchestrated agitation through demonstrations in the streets and publicity in the media when seeking redress for real and imagined grievances.
Post-1857 India also experienced a period of unprecedented calamity when the region was swept by a series of frequent and devastating
famines, among the most catastrophic on record. Approximately 25 major famines spread through states such as
Tamil Nadu in South India,
Bihar in the north, and
Bengal in the east in the latter half of the 19th century, killing between 30â€"40 million Indians. The famines were a product both of uneven rainfall and British economic and administrative policies, which since 1857 had led to the seizure and conversion of local farmland to foreign-owned plantations, restrictions on internal trade, heavy taxation of Indian citizens to support unsuccessful British expeditions in
Afghanistan (see
Second Anglo-Afghan War), inflationary measures that increased the price of food, and substantial exports of staple crops from India to the United Kingdom (Dutt, 1900 and 1902; Srivastava, 1968; Sen, 1982; Bhatia, 1985). Some British citizens such as
William Digby agitated for policy reforms and famine relief, but Lord Lytton, son of the poet
Edward Bulwer-Lytton and the governing British viceroy in India, opposed such changes in the belief that they would stimulate shirking by Indian workers. Native industries in India were also decimated in the aftermath of the 1857 rebellion, particularly during the three decades from
1870 to
1900. The famines continued until independence in
1947, with the
Bengal Famine of 1943â€"44 â€" among the most devastating â€" killing 3â€"4 million Indians during
World War II.
Beginnings of self-government
The first steps were taken toward self-government in British India in the late
19th century with the appointment of Indian counsellors to advise the British viceroy and the establishment of provincial councils with Indian members; the British subsequently widened participation in legislative councils with the
Indian Councils Act of 1892.
The
Government of India Act of 1909 â€" also known as the Morley-Minto Reforms (
John Morley was the secretary of state for India, and
Gilbert Elliot, fourth earl of Minto, was viceroy) â€" gave Indians limited roles in the central and provincial legislatures, known as legislative councils. Indians had previously been appointed to legislative councils, but after the reforms some were elected to them. At the centre, the majority of council members continued to be government-appointed officials, and the viceroy was in no way responsible to the legislature. At the provincial level, the elected members, together with unofficial appointees, outnumbered the appointed officials, but responsibility of the governor to the legislature was not contemplated. Morley made it clear in introducing the legislation to the
British Parliament that parliamentary self-government was not the goal of the British government.
The Morley-Minto Reforms were a milestone. Step by step, the elective principle was introduced for membership in Indian legislative councils. The "electorate" was limited, however, to a small group of upper-class Indians. These elected members increasingly became an "opposition" to the "official government". Communal electorates were later extended to other communities and made a political factor of the Indian tendency toward group identification through religion. The practice created certain vital questions for all concerned. The intentions of the British were questioned. How humanitarian was their concern for the minorities? Were separate electorates a manifestation of "
divide and rule"?
For Muslims it was important both to gain a place in all-India politics and to retain their Muslim identity, objectives that required varying responses according to circumstances, as the example of
Muhammed Ali Jinnah illustrates. Jinnah, who was born in 1876, studied law in England and began his career as an enthusiastic liberal in Congress on returning to India. In 1913 he joined the
Muslim League, which had been shocked by the 1911 annulment of the partition of Bengal into cooperating with Congress to make demands on the British. Jinnah continued his membership in Congress until 1919. During this dual membership period, he was described by a leading Congress spokesperson as the "ambassador of Hindu-Muslim unity".
After World War I
India's important contributions to the efforts of the
British Empire in
World War I stimulated further demands by Indians and further response from the British. The
Congress Party and the
Muslim League met in joint session in December 1916. Under the leadership of
Jinnah and Pandit
Motilal Nehru (father of
Jawaharlal Nehru), unity was preached and a proposal for constitutional reform was made that included the concept of separate electorates. The resulting (see
http://www.storyofpakistan.com/articletext.asp?artid=A032&Pg=2) Congress-Muslim League Pact (often referred to as the Lucknow Pact) was a sincere effort to compromise. Congress accepted the separate electorates demanded by the Muslim League, and the Muslim League joined with Congress in demanding self-government. The pact was expected to lead to permanent and constitutional united action.
In August
1917 the British government formally announced a policy of "increasing association of Indians in every branch of the administration and the gradual development of self-governing institutions with a view to the progressive realization of responsible government in India as an integral part of the British Empire." Constitutional reforms were embodied in the
Government of India Act 1919, also known as the
Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms (
Edwin Samuel Montagu was the United Kingdom's
Secretary of State for India; the
Viscount Chelmsford was viceroy). These reforms represented the maximum concessions the British were prepared to make at that time. The franchise was extended, and increased authority was given to central and provincial legislative councils, but the viceroy remained responsible only to London.
The changes at the provincial level were significant, as the provincial legislative councils contained a considerable majority of elected members. In a system called "
dyarchy", based on an approach developed by
Lionel Curtis, the nation-building departments of government â€" agriculture, education, public works, and the like â€" were placed under ministers who were individually responsible to the legislature. The departments that made up the "steel frame" of British rule â€" finance, revenue, and home affairs â€" were retained by executive councillors who were often (but not always) British, and who were responsible to the governor.
The
1919 reforms did not satisfy political demands in India. The British repressed opposition and restrictions on the press and on movement were re-enacted. An apparently unwitting example of violation of rules against the gathering of people led to the
massacre at Jalianwala Bagh in
Amritsar in April
1919. This tragedy galvanized such political leaders as
Jawaharlal Nehru (
1889â€"
1964) and
Mohandas Karamchand "Mahatma" Gandhi (
1869â€"
1948) and the masses who followed them to press for further action.
The
Allies' post-World War I peace settlement with
Turkey provided an additional stimulus to the grievances of the Muslims, who feared that one goal of the Allies was to end the
caliphate of the
Ottoman sultan. After the end of the Mughal Empire, the Ottoman caliph had become the symbol of Islamic authority and unity to Indian
Sunni Muslims. A pan-Islamic movement, known as the
Khilafat Movement, spread in India. It was a mass repudiation of Muslim loyalty to British rule and thus legitimated Muslim participation in the Indian nationalist movement. The leaders of the Khilafat Movement used Islamic symbols to unite the diverse but assertive Muslim community on an all-India basis and bargain with both Congress leaders and the British for recognition of minority rights and political concessions.
Muslim leaders from the
Deoband and
Aligarh movements joined Gandhi in mobilising the masses for the
1920 and
1921 demonstrations of civil disobedience and non-cooperation in response to the massacre at Amritsar. At the same time, Gandhi endorsed the Khilafat Movement, thereby placing many Hindus behind what had been solely a Muslim demand.
Despite impressive achievements, however, the Khilafat Movement failed. Turkey rejected the caliphate and became a secular state. Furthermore, the religious, mass-based aspects of the movement alienated such Western-oriented constitutional politicians as Jinnah, who resigned from Congress. Other Muslims also were uncomfortable with Gandhi's leadership. The British historian
Sir Percival Spear wrote that
"a mass appeal in his Gandhi's hands could not be other than a Hindu one. He could transcend caste but not community. The Hindu devices he used went sour in the mouths of Muslims". In the final analysis, the movement failed to lay a lasting foundation of Indian unity and served only to aggravate Hindu-Muslim differences among masses that were being politicised. Indeed, as India moved closer to the self-government implied in the Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms, rivalry over what might be called the spoils of independence sharpened the differences between the communities.
Further reform
The political picture in India was not at all clear when the mandated decennial review of the Government of India Act of 1919 became due in 1929. Prospects of further constitutional reforms spurred greater agitation and a frenzy of demands from different groups (See
Nehru Report). The
Simon Commission headed by
Sir John Simon, who recommended further constitutional change, but it was not until 1935 that a
new Government of India Act was passed. The
Indian Round Table Conferences 1931-1933 were held in London, at which a wide variety of interests from India were represented. The major disagreement concerned the continuation of separate electorates, which Gandhi and Congress strongly opposed. As a result, the decision was forced on the British government. Prime Minister
Ramsay MacDonald issued his "communal award," which continued the system of separate electorates at both the central and the provincial level.
The principal result of the act was provincial autonomy. The dyarchical system was discontinued, and all subjects were placed under ministers who were individually and collectively responsible to the former legislative councils, which were renamed legislative assemblies (In a few provinces, including Bengal, a bicameral system was established; the upper house continued to be called a legislative council). Almost all assembly members were elected, with the exception of some special and otherwise unrepresented groups. After the elections, provincial chief ministers and cabinets took office, although the governors had limited emergency powers.
Sindh was separated from
Bombay and became a province. The
1919 reforms had earlier been introduced in the
North-West Frontier Province.
Balochistan, however, retained special status; it had no legislature and was governed by an "agent general to the governor general." At the centre, the act essentially provided for the establishment of dyarchy, but it also provided for a federal system that included the princes. The princes refused to join a system that might force them to accept decisions made by elected politicians. Thus, the full provisions of the 1935 act did not come into force at the centre.
World War II and the End of the Raj
At the start of
World War II an agreement was reached between the British government and the
Indian independence movement whereby India would be granted independence once victory was gained over the
Axis Powers, in exchange for India's full co-operation in the war. Millions of Indians joined the military; it was the largest all-volunteer army in the history of the world.
At midnight on
August 14,
1947 Pakistan (then also including modern Bangladesh) was granted independence. India was granted independence the following day.
Most people would give these dates as the end of the British Raj. However, some people argue that it continued until
1950 in India when it adopted a
republican constitution.
At the time of independence, British India consisted of the following provinces:
*
Ajmer-Merwara-Kekri*
Andaman and Nicobar Islands*
Assam*
Baluchistan*
Bengal*
Bihar*
Bombay Province -
Bombay*
Central Provinces and Berar*
Coorg*
Delhi Province -
Delhi*
Madras Province -
Madras*
North-West Frontier Province*
Panth-Piploda*
Orissa*
Punjab*
Sindh*
United Provinces (
Agra and
Oudh)
Eleven provinces (Assam, Bengal, Bihar, Bombay, Central Provinces, Madras, North-West Frontier, Orissa, Punjab, and Sindh) were headed by a governor. The remaining six (Ajmer Merwara, Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Baluchistan, Coorg, Delhi, and Panth-Piploda) were governed by a chief commissioner.
There were also several hundred
Princely States, under British protection but ruled by native rulers. Among the most notable of these were
Jaipur,
Hyderabad,
Mysore, and
Jammu and Kashmir.
*
Colonial India*
Anglo-Indian*
Anglo-Burmese*
British Empire*
Burma*
Imperialism in Asia*
India Office*
Governor-General of India*
Indian Civil Service*
Government of India Act*
Partition of India*
History of Bangladesh*
History of India*
History of Pakistan*
Anglo-Indian cuisine*
India (disambiguation)
