British India Development in 1858-1914 - Essay Example

British India 1858 to 1914 “As long as we rule in India, we are the greatest power in the world, if we loose it we shall fall straight away to the third rate power.” Viceroy Lord Curzon states in 19011 The immense wealth of India had attracted the attention of the Europeans in the past and proved to be the cause of its misery and misfortune. The East, particularly India and China with their old civilizations and glorious past, was politically, economically and socially far more advanced than the New World. If the European States could get the permission to trade with them and establish factories they would enrich themselves in no time. Europeans were particularly attracted to the sacred oil to India. The main object of the Europeans of coming to the land was to make business with the East. But in course of time the merchants became the master of the land2. Like Dutch, the Danish started a Danish East India Company in 1616 and established factories at Tranquebar in 1620 and Serampore in 1676. But they sold of their factories to the British in 1845 for Rs. 12, 50,000. The Ostend Company was similarly started by Flemish merchants in 1723. Its chief settlement in India was at Bankibazar, three miles north of Barrackpur. A Swedish East India Company was chartered in 1731. All these projects, after sometime, could not stand the test of time3. The victory of the English over the Spanish Armada and the report of the immense wealth of India spread by the English travellers like Ralph Fitch and Mildenball aroused in the minds of Englishmen a strong desire to trade with the East. With this end in a view body of English merchants applied to Queen Elizabeth for a charter granting them the right of trading in the East. In 1600, Queen Elizabeth granted them under the title, ‘The Governor And Company of Merchants of London trading into the East Indies’ - a monopoly of trade in the East for a term of 15 years. This company is generally known as East India Company. India was the bone of contention between England and France but as a result of three Carnatic Wars fought from 1746 to 1761, the East India Company had established her superiority in India. As a result of her success in the wars amongst European Powers in the 18th Century, England emerged as the mistress of the seas4. There is no doubt that the permanent settlement made the British government highly popular and gave stability to its administration. The causes those were responsible for the success of the English Company. Firstly it was a private enterprise. This created a spirit of self-reliance among the people. They knew that if they worked hard, they would be able to get profits and if they slacked, they were to be ruined. The result was English company became prosperous. Secondly, the company success was their naval supremacy. On account of this, the English could send help to India whenever they pleased. There was none to check them on the way. Thirdly, the English had their naval base in Bombay. The result was that they could keep their ships in safety in Bombay and could start their operations at once as soon as an opportunity was offered to them. Fourthly, they had their three important places in India, viz., Calcutta, Madras and Bombay. The result was that even if one of these places were conquered by the enemy, the other two remained under their control, as these three places were very far from each other and cannot be conquered at once. Fifthly, the English entered India from the right quarter. They started from Bengal. It had a very productive soil. As there was a lot of gold with people, therefore the English got a lot of money after the conquest. Moreover, through the Ganges River, the English could penetrate into the interior of the country from Bengal. Lastly, the English were fortunate in having men like Lord Clive, Lord Lawrence and Sir Eyre Coote on their side. English always helped each other and that was the main reason of their success5. In another hundred years, England has acquired complete mastery of the entire Indian peninsula. In after Great Revolt of 1857 had been successfully suppressed, the reins of the Government of India passed into the hands of British Crown and Parliament from the East India Company which had ruled India so far. The economic reforms introduced by the British were ultimately to help their own progress. There was increased emphasis on growing crops that were to help British industry, e.g. cotton was to be grown on a large scale, not for the benefits of the growers, but for the mills at Lancashire from where manufactured cotton clothe (chintz) was to flood local Indian markets. Similarly, in place of food crops, indigo was grown, for it was major contributor to the British economy. The famous muslin cloth of Dacca was no longer produced, as there was not enough cotton for the domestic industry. Traditional crafts declined as only those which had value for them were encouraged by the British. The peasants, deprived of land to farm, were like a herd of animals, moving from one place to another in search of livelihood. Economic progress was achieved through the introduction of the railways, telegraph and universal post. It must be noted that, though transport was made modern, road building and railways were confined to areas from where the British could benefit. There was almost no economic activity in the rugged areas of the N.W.F.P., where the locals fiercely fought the British. New roads were made and old ones improved in areas where economic necessity was felt for British interests. This progress in India under the British was of an arbitrary nature. Similarly, the telegraph and post were introduced not for the good of people, but for improving the administration, the former playing a great role in quelling the 1857 uprising6. In 1857, the total military strength of the Company was 238,000, out of which 38,000 were Europeans. Each presidency (Bengal, Madras and Bombay) had its own army. The uprising has been called a revolt or rebellion or mutiny by the British and the War or independence by the Indians. The appellations of revolt or rebellion or mutiny do not justice to the events, as the words imply a movement against a legal authority. The British were ruling India according to well thought out plans, but can never be rightly referred to as its legal rulers. All men, regardless of their religion or ethnic origin have a right to fight for freedom, which is basically what 1857 was about. But to call it a war of independence implies that the whole of the subcontinent was involved, and it was not; had it been so, the British troops could not have controlled the situation7. The British had exceptional leaders: Havelock, Nicholson, Lawrence and Outram had never seriously doubted their military capacity to win, knowing that they could control the people they had conquered so easily hundred years ago. The events of 1857 can be viewed as a result of the seething rebellion started by the British policies8. Though the revolt failed in its immediate objective, it laid the ground for a deeper nationalistic thinking, being the first expression of Indian’s urge for freedom. The result of the uprising were many, some were apparent at once and others creating repercussions over a period of time. The most important result was the end of the rule of the British East India Company. The land of India was now governed by the British Crown, with Queen Victoria as the supreme monarch, under her famous proclamation of 1858. There were changes in the way India was governed, the post of Secretary of State for India was created and an Act for better government of India was passed by the British parliament. The Queen’s Declaration held that all treaties with the rulers and prices were to be honoured. The old policy of annexations was changed, the Queen’s proclamation declaring ‘We desire no extension of out present territorial possession’. The Doctrine of Lapse was abandoned. The army was thoroughly reorganised, the weaponry and ammunition kept more securely in British hands. The numbers of British troops were increased to almost twice its previous strength. The Commission of Army Organization of 1879 observed: ‘the lesson taught by the mutiny have led to the maintenance of two great principles, of retaining in the country an irresistible force of British troops and keeping the artillery in the hands of the Europeans’9 The policy of centralization of government adopted through the Act of 1883 was changed and a new ‘Principle of Decentralization and Indianization’ was recognised. British were there in India for trade but they started to rule and along with French and Germans, it also started to increase the revenues and colonies by exporting and winning. Generally, it is seen that the major part of the capital for industrial development was provided by the British. The first big developments came when the capital from Britain coaxed into the country. The Indian proportion began increasing from 1900 onwards. From 1875 onwards, with the use of coal for smelting, the iron and steel industry began to develop. The establishment of the Empress Mill at Nagpur by Jamshed Tata was the start of a completely Indian steel and iron industry. Other industries which grew were the chemical industries (industrial acids, soda vegetable oils and disinfectants). The railway helped in developing engineering as well as rice and flour mills, woollen and silk manufacture, and cement from 1914 onwards, Shellac paper matches and sugar refining. From 1860 onwards, the industrial current was spreading across life like a huge tide. Administration after 1857 became more exclusively British. No matter how well Indian spoke and wrote English, there were no longer trusted by British civil. There were total thirteen Viceroys from 1958 to 1914 who came to India and have a remarkable place in the history. Lord Canning (1958-1962) put into force the penal code drafted by Macauley in 1858, followed by Code of Criminal Procedure. The controversial Doctrine of Lapse was withdrawn by the Lord Canning10. In 1878, Lord Lytton (1876-80) passed the Vernacular Press Act which affected the materials published in vernacular papers. This was repealed by Lord Ripon (1880-1884). The period of Lord Ripon’s viceroyalty is specially known for the Ilbert Bill wherein the legal member of viceroy’s council submitted a bill under which Europeans could be tried by the local judges in order to remove racial distinctions. The European community protested violently and the bill has to be modified so that a European accused of a crime could be tried by a jury consisting of at least 50% Europeans. Lord Lansdowne (1888-94) passed the Age of Consent Act, which rose the age of statutory rape (intercourse with or without the consent of a child bride) from 10 to 12 years. This was the first British social reform to be attempted since the war of 1857. Lord Curzon (1899-1905) improved the police department by raising salaries and setting up training school for the recruits. After 1858 there were dramatic positive reforms in the army. The Company’s presidency armies were recognised as a martially co-ordinated royal machine to effectively quell any other rebellion. The ratio of Indian to British troops was reduced to two or three to one, the total manpower in 1863 being 40,000 Indians to 65,000 British soldiers. The British were given exclusive control over artillery and other scientific branches of the service, so that they could have the first access to the fire power in case of trouble. Indian regiments were exclusively recruited from areas where the natives had proven their loyalties. The bangalis, Biharis and Marhattas were not given a place in the newly reorganized armies. Within reach regiment troops were mixed and neighbouring regiments recruited from distant regions of India, ideally from people of different ethnic strains, castes or communities. A spurious theory of ‘martial races’ was put forward by the British, based on the loyalty of troops from certain areas. This racism of the rulers was later on to fuel nationalism amongst the ruled classes. Lord Elgin (1894-99) changed the old system of military organization and in place of three separate armies under three commanders in chief of the three presidencies (Bengal, Mumbai, Chenai)11. Lord Curzon withdrew British troops from the frontier outposts and replaced with forces raised from within the local frontier commanded by British officers. Within the country, British forces were increased and communication and transport improved for the purpose of movement of troops. Lord Curzon founded the Imperial Cadet Corps to give military training to the sons of the ruling families. He also compelled the native rulers to maintain a force at their own expense in order to meet any emergency12. Although, the British improved military was an institution, but in 1913 the Army in India Committee had determined that India should play only a minimal role in any European conflict and that Indian army efforts should concentrate on defending its own borders. However, in August 1914 the British Council of War asked India to prepare additional troops for deployment overseas, commencing with operations in Egypt. Ultimately Indian soldier fought in Western front which was only possible because of the British powerful rule of 200 years. . During the First World War, one million of the volunteer of the expanded British Indian Army were sent out of the colony and 100,000 died in combat. About half of these were from areas that now comprise Pakistan. The interests of the British thus became paramount in the governance of India. The policies and interests of the British in India were determined by the industrialists, the most powerful section in British society. Indian resources were also utilised to serve the interests of the British Empire in other parts of the world and in costly wars. British imperialism was more pragmatic than that of other colonial powers. Its motivation was economic. For this reason they westernized India only to a limited degree13. British interests were of several kinds. Firstly, to achieve a monopolistic trading position, later it was felt that a regime of free trade would make India a major market for British goods and a source of raw materials, but British capitalists who invested in India, or who sold banking or shipping service there, continued effectively to enjoy monopolistic privileges. Secondly, India also provided interesting and lucrative employment for a sizeable portion of the British upper middle class, and the remittances they sent home made an appreciable contribution to Britains balance of payments and capacity to save. Finally, control of India was a key element in the world power structure, in terms of geography, logistics and military manpower. The British were not averse to Indian economic development if it increased their markets but refused to help in areas where they felt there was conflict with their own economic interests or political security. Strong both economically and military, the British decided to reform Indian society. Education, health, social customs and traditions were all a part of the new British thinking14. References: B. Porter. The Lions Share: A Short History of British Imperialism, 1850-2004. Edition: 4, illustrated. (Pearson/Longman, 2004). C.A. Bayly. The new Cambridge history of India. [Cambridge University Press, 1980] D. Dilks, Curzon in India. Vol. 2. (London 1969). E. J. Thompson & G.T. Garratt. Rise and Fulfilment of British Rule in India: Edition: 2. [Central Book Depot, 1962] E. Micheal. The Last Years of British India. (London 1963) J. Mill & H.H. Wilson. The History of British India. Edition: 5. (Oxford University, 1858). M. B. Jones. The Viceroys of India. Edition: illustrated. (The University of Michigan 1982) P. J. Marshall. The Cambridge Illustrated History of the British Empire. (Cambridge Illustrated Histories, 1996). R. Dayal. A text book of Modern European History (789-1939).Edition:2. (CBS Publisher India, 1992-93). W. R. Louis, A. Low & A. Porter. The Oxford History of the British Empire: Volume III: The Nineteenth Century. (Oxford University Press, 1996). W. R. Louis, et al. The Oxford History of the British Empire. (Oxford University Press, 1998). W. R. Louis. & J. M. Brown. The Oxford History of the British Empire: Volume IV: The Twentieth Century. [Oxford University Press, USA (December 23, 1999)] Read More