History Of Modern India

Chapter 4

Prev List Next

Fourthly, Britain had a government which was under the influence of commercial and manufacturing interests and which, therefore, fought other countries determinedly for markets and colonies.

Fifthly, the demands for increased production were met by developments in technology. Britain.s rising industry cofild base itself on the inventions of Hargreaves, Watt, Crompton, Cartwright, and many others. Many of the inventions now utilised-had been available for centuries. In order to take full advantage of these inventions and steam-power, production was now increasingly concentrated in factories. It should be noted that it was not these inventions which produced the Industrial Revolution, Rather it was the desire of manufacturers to increase production rapidly for the expanding markets and their capacity to invest the needed capital which led f"tcm to utilise the existing technology and to call forth new inventions. In fact, new organisation of industry was to make technical change a permanent feature of human development. The Industrial Revolution has, in this sense, never comc to an end, for modern industry and technology have gone on developing from one stage to another ever since the middle of the 18th century.

The Industrial Revolution transformed British society in a fundamental manner. It led to rapid economic development which is the foundation of today.s high standard of living in Britain as well as in Europe, the Soviet Union, the U.S.A., Canada, Australia, and j.a.pan. In fact, until the beginning of the 19th century, the difference in the standards of living of what are today economically the advanced and the backward countries was very slight. It was the Absence of the Industrial Revolution in the latter group of countries which has led to the immense income gap that we see in the world of today.

Britain became increasingly urbanised as a result of the Industrial Revolution. More and more men began to live in factory towns. In 1730, Britain had only two cities with more than 50,000 inhabitants; in 1851, their number was 29.

Two entirely new cla.s.ses of society were born: the industrial capitalists, who owned the factories, and workers who hired out their labour on daily wages. While the former cla.s.s developed rapidly, enjoying unprecedented prosperity, the workers-the labouring poor-in the beginning reaped a harvest of sorrow. They were uprooted from their rural surroundings; and their traditional way oflife was disrupted and destroyed. They had now to live in cities which were full of smoke and filth. Housing was utterly inadequate and insanitary. Most of them lived in dark, sunless slums which have been described so well by Charles d.i.c.kens in his novels. Hours of work in the factories and mines were intolerably long-often going up to 14 or 16 hours a day. Wages were very low. Women and children had to work equally hard. Sometimes 4 or 5-year old children were employed in factories and mines. In general, a worker.s life was one of poverty, hard work, disease, and malnutrition. It was only after the middle of the 19th century that improvement in their incomes began to take place, The rise of a powerful cla.s.s of manufacturers had an important impact on Indian administration and its policies. As this cla.s.s grew in number and strength and political influence, it began to attack the trade monopoly of the Company. Since the profits of this cla.s.s came from manufacturing and not trade, it wanted to encourage not imports of manufactures from India but exports of its own products to India as well as imports of raw materials like raw cotton from India, In 1769 the British industrialists compelled the Company by law to export every year Britisn manufactures amounting to over 380,000, even though it suffered a loss on the transaction. In 1793, the"1 forced the Company to grant them the use of 3,000 tons of its shipping every year to carry their goods. Exports of British cotton goods to the East, mostly to India, increased from 156 in 1794 to nearly 110,000 in 1813, that is, by nearly 700 times, But this increase was not enough to satisfy the wild hopes of the Lancashire manufacturers who began to actively search for ways and means of promoting the export of their products to India, As R.C. Dutt pointed out later in 1901 in his famous work, The Economic History of India, the effort of the Parliamentary Select Committee of 1812 was "to discover how they (Indian manufactures) could be replaced by British manufactures, and how British industries could be promoted at the expense of Indian industries.. .

The British manufacturers looked upon the East India Company, its monopoly of Eastern trade, and its methods of exploitation of India through control of India.s revenues and export trade, to be the chief obstacles in the fulfilment of their dreams. Between 1793 and 1813, they launched a powerful campaign against the Company and its commercial privileges and, finally succeeded in 1813 in abolishing its monopoly of Indian trade.

With this event, a new phase in Britain.s economic relations with India began. Agricultural India was to be made an economic colony of industrial England.

The Government of India now followed a policy of free trade or unrestricted entry of British goods. Indian handicrafts were exposed to the fierce and unequal compet.i.tion of the machine-made products of Britain and faced extinction. India had to admit British goods free or at nominal tariff rates. The Government of India also tried to increase the number of purchasers of British goods by following a policy of fresh conquests and direct occupation of protected states tike Avadh. Many British officials, political leaders, and businessmen advocated reduction in land revenue so that the Indian peasant mignt be in a better position to buy foreign manufactures They also advocated the modernisation of India so that more and more Indians might develop a taste for Western goods.

Indian hand-made goods were unable to compete against the much cheaper products of British mills which had been rapidly improving their productive capacity by using inventions and a wider use of steam power. Any government wedded to Indian interests alone would have protected Indian industry through high tariff walls and used the time thus gained to import the new techniques of the West Britain had done this in relation to its own industries in the 18th century; France, Germany, and the U S.A. weie also doing no at the time; j.a.pan and the Soviet Union were to do it many decades ater; and free India is doing it today. However, not only were Tndia"i industries not protected by the foreign rulers but foreign goods were g ven free entry. Foreign imports rose rapidly. Imports of British cotton goods alone increased from 110,000 in 1813 to 6,300,000 in 1856.

While tbe doors of India were thus thrown wide open to foreign goods, Indian handicraft products continued to pay heavy duties on entry into Britain. The British would not take in Indian goods on fair and equal terms even at this stage when their industries had achieved technological superiority over Indian handicrafts. Duties in Britain on several categories of Indian goods continued to be high till their export to Britain virtually ceased. For example, in 1824, a duty of 67 per cent was levied on Indian calicos and a duty of 37$ per cent on Indian muslins. Indian sugar had to pay on entry into Britain a duty that was over three times its cost pi ice. In some cases duties in F.ngland went up as high as 400 per cent. As a result of such prohibitive import duties and development .of machine industries, Indian exports to foreign countries fell rapidly. The unfairness of British commercial policy has been summed up by the British historian, H.H. Wilson, in the following words: : . ) It was staled in evidence, that (he cotton and silk goods of India up (o this period could be sold for a profit in the British market, at a price from 50 to 60 per cent lower (ban those fabricated in England. It consequently became necessary to protect the latter by duties of 70 to 80 per cent on tbeir value, or by positive prohibition. Had this not been the case, had not such prohibitory duties and decrees existed, the mills of Paisley and of Manchester would have been stopped in their outset and could scarcely have been again set m motion, even by the power of Meam. They were created by the sacrifice of the Indian manufacture. Had India been independent, she would have retaliated, would have imposed preventive duties upon British goods, and would thus have preserved her own productive industry from annihilation. This act of self-defence was not permitted her; she was at the mercy of the stranger. British goods were forced upon her without paying any duty; and the foreign manufacturer employed the arm of political injustice to keep down and ultimately strangle a compet.i.tor with whom he could not have contended on equal terms.

Instead of exporting manufactures, India was now forced to export raw materials like raw cotton and raw silk which British industries needed urgently, or plantation products like indigo and tea, or foodgrains which were in short supply in Britain. In 1856, India exported 4,300,000 worth of raw cotton, only 810,000 worth of cotton manufactures, 2,900,000 worth of foodgrains, 1,730,000 worth of indigo, and 770,000 , worth of raw silk. The British also promoted the sale of Indian opium in China even though the Chinese put a ban on it because of its poisonous and other harmful qualities. But the trade yielded large profits to British merchants and fat revenues to the Company-controlled administration of India. Interestingly enough, the import of opium into Britain was strictly banned.

Thus, the commercial policy of the East Tndia Company after 1813 was guided by the needs of British industry. Its main aim was to transform India into a consumer of British manufactures and a supplier of raw materials.

The Drain of Wealth: The British exported to Britain part of India.s wealth and resources for which India got no adequate economic or material return- This Economic Drain. was peculiar to British rule- Even the worst of previous Indian governments had spent the revenue they extracted from the people inside the country. Whether they spent it on irrigation ca.n.a.ls and trunk roads, or on palaces, temples and mosques, or on wars and conquests, or even oa personal luxury, it ultimately encouraged Indian trade and industry or gave employment to Indians. This was so because even foreign conquerors, for example the Mughals, soon settled in India and -made it their home. But the British remained perpetual foreigners, Englishmen working an^L trading id India nearly always planed to go back to Brjtain, and the,Indian Qovemment was controlled by a. foreign company of merchants and the Government of Bri^ai^. The British, consequently, spent.a large part of the, taxes .and income they derived from Indian people not in India but in Britain, tfyeifrhofnecpuotry.

The drain of wealth from Bengal began in 1757 when th< company.s="" servants="" began="" to="" carry="" home="" immense="" fortunes="" extorted="" from="" indian="" rulers,="" zamindars,="" merchants="" and="" the="" common="" people.="" they="" sent="" home="" nearly="" 6="" million="" between="" 1758="" and="" 1765.="" this="" amount="" was="" more="" than="" four="" times="" the="" total="" land="" revenue="" collection="" of="" the="" nawab="" of="" bengal="" in="" 1765.="" this="" amount="" of="" drain="" did="" not="" include="" the="" trading="" profits="" of="" the="" company="" which="" were="" often="" no="" less="" illegally="" derived.="" in="" 1765="" the="" company="" acquired="" the="" dewani="" of="" bengal="" and="" thus="" gained="" control="" over="" its="" revenues.="" the="" company,="" even="" more="" than="" its="" servants,="" soon="" directly="" organised="" the="" drain.="" it="" began="" to="" purchase="" indian="" goods="" out="" of="" the="" revenue="" of="" bengal="" and="" to="" export="" them.="" these="" purchases="" were="" known="" as="" investments.="" thus,="" through="" investments",="" bengal.s="" revenue="" was="" sent="" to="" england.="" for="" example,="" from="" 1765="" to="" 1770,="" the="" company="" sent="" out="" in="" the="" form="" of="" goods="" nearly="" four="" million="" pounds="" or="" about="" 33="" per="" cent="" of="" the="" net="" revenue="" of="" bengal.="" the="" actual="" drain="" was="" even="" more,="" as="" a="" large="" part="" of="" the="" salaries="" and="" other="" incomes="" of="" english="" officials="" and="" the="" trading="" fortunes="" of="" english="" merchants="" also="" found="" their="" way="" into="">

While the exact amount of the annual dram has not been calculated so far and historians differ on its quantum, the fact of the drain, at least from 1757 to 1857, was widely accepted by British officials. Thus, for example, Lord Ellenborough, Chairman of the Select Committee of the House of Lords, and later Governor-General of India, admitted in 1840 lhat India was "required to transmit annually to this country (Britain), without any return except in the small value of military stores, a sum amounting to between two and three million sterling". And John Sullivan, President of the Board of Revenue, Madras, remarked: "Our system acts very much like a sponge, drawing up all the good things from the banks jf the Ganges, and squeezing them down on the banks of the Thames."

Development of Means of Transport and Communication: Up to the middle of the 19th century, the means of transport in India were backward. They were confined to bullock-cart, camel, and packhorse. The British rulers soon realised that a cheap and easy system of transport was a necessity if British manufactures were to flow into Indi? on a large scale and her raw materials secured for British industries. They introduced steamships on the rivers and set abo,ut improving the. roads, Wqrk on the Grand Trunk Road from Calcutta; to Q^lhj < was="" begun="" in="" 1839="" and="" completed="" in="" the="" 1850*s.="" eftoj;ts="" were="" also="" mad#-="" to="" link="" by="" road="" the="" major="" cities,="" ports,="" and="" markets="" of=""><> But real improvement in transport came only, with tfte, c.opiijiifi oj^ (.fog, railways.

The first,railway engine designed by Q?org? Stephwi$0n th* rails in England in 1814. Railways developed rapidfyviw during the 1830.s and 1840"s. Pressure soon mounted for their speedy construction in India. The British manufacturers hoped thereby to open the vast and hitherto untapped market in the interior of the country and to facilitate the export of Indian raw materials and food-stuffs to feed their hungry machines and operatives. The British bankers and investors looked upon railway development in India as a channel for safe investment of their surplus capital. The British steel manufacturers regarded it as an outlet for their products like rails, engines, wagons, and other machinery and plant. The Government of India soon fell in step with these views and found additional merit in the railways; they would enable it to administer the country more effectively and efficiently and to protect their regime from internal rebellion or external aggression by enabling more rapid mobilization and movement of troops.

The earliest suggestion to build a railway in India was made in Madras in 1831. flui the wagons of this railway were to be drawn by horses. Construction of steam-driven railways in India was first proposed in 1834 in England. It was given strong political support by England"s railway promoters, financiers, mercantile houses trading with India, and textile manufacturers. It was decided that the Indian railways were .to be constructed and operated by private companies who were guaranteed a minimum of five per cent return on their capital by the Government of India, The first railway line running from Bombay to Thana was opened to traffic in 1853.

Lord Dalhousie, who became Governor-General of India in 1849, was an ardent advocate of rapid railway construction. In a famous note, written in 1853, he laid down an extensive programme of railway development, He proposed a network of four main trunk lines which would link the interior of the country with the big ports and inter-connect the different parts of the country.

By the end of 1869 more than 4,000 miles of railways had been built by the guaranteed companies; but this system proved very cosily and slow, and so in 1869 the Government of India decided to build new railways as stale enterprises. But the speed of railway extension still did not satisfy officials in India and businessmen in Britain. After 1880, railways were built through private enterprise as welt as state agency. By 1905, nearly 28,0 miles of railways had been built. Three important aspects of the development of Indian railways should be kept in view. Firstly, nearly the entire amount of over 350 crores of rupees invested in them was provided by British investors, Indian capital contributing only a negligible share of it. Secondly, they were for the first 50 years financially losing concerns which were not able to pay interest on the capital invested in them. Thirdly, in their planning, construction and management, ItKe economic and political development of India and her people was not

kept in ihc forefront. On the contrary, the primary consideration was lo serve the economic, political, and military interests of British imperialism in India. The railway lines were laid primarily with a view to link India.s raw material producing a reps in the interior with the ports of export. The needs of Indian industries regarding their markets and thejr sourccs of raw materials were neglected. Moreover, the railway rates were fixed in a manner so as to favour imports and exports and to discrimin&e against internal movement of goods. Several railway lines in Burma and North-Western India were built at high cost to serve British imperial interests.

The British also established an efficient and modern postal system and introduced the telegraph. The first telegraph line from Calcutta to Agra was opened in 1853. Lord Dalhousie introduced postage stamps. Previously cash payment had to be made when a letter was posted. He

also cut down postal rates and charged a uniform rate of half an anna for a letter all over the land. Before his reforms, the postage on a letter depended on the distance it was to travel: in some cases the postage on a letter was the equivalent of as much as four days wages of a skilled Indian worker!

H iirc# rrah (A Messenger) Courtesy; National Archives t>f India, Ntw Delhi

Land Revenue Policy The main burden of providing money for the trade and profits of the Company, the cost of administration, and the wars of British expansion in India had to be borne by the Indian peasant or ryot. In fact the British could not have conquered such a vast country as India if they had not taxed him heavilyi The Indian state had since times immemorial taken a part of the agri cultural produce u land revenue. It had done so either directly through its servants or indirectly through intermediaries, such as zamindars, revenuefarmers, etc., who collected the land revenue from the cultivator and kept a part of it as their commission. These intermediaries were primarily collectors of land revenue, although they did sometimes own some land in the area from which they collected revenue.

The Permanent Settlement: We have seen that in 1765, the East India Company acquired the Dewani, or control over the revenues, of Bengal, Bihar, and Orissa. Initially, it made an attempt to continue the old system of revenue collection though it increased the amount to be collected from Rs. 14,290,000 in 1722 and Rs. 8,110,000 in 1764 to Rs. 23,400,000 in 1771. In 1773, it decided to manage the land revenues directly. Warren Hastings auctioned the right to collect revenue to the highest bidders. But his experiment did not succeed. Though the amount of land revenue was pushed high by zamindars and other speculators bidding against each other, the actual collection varied from year to year and seldom came up to official expectations. This introduced instability in the Company"s revenues at a time when the Company was hard pressed for money. Moreover, neither the ryot nor the zamindar would do anything to improve cultivation when they did not know what the next year.s a.s.sessment would be or who would be the next year.s revenue collector.

It was at this stage that the idea first emerged of fixing the land revenue at a permanent amount. Finally, after prolonged discussion and debate, the Permanent Settlement was introduced in Bengal and Bihar in 1793 by Lord Cornwallis. It had two special features. Firstly, the zamindars and revenue collectors were converted into so many landlords. They were not only to act as agents of the Government in collecting land revenue from the ryot hut also to become the owners of the entire land ia their zamindaris. Their right of ownership was made hereditary and transferable. On the other hand the cultivators were reduced to the low status of mere tenants and were deprived of long-standing rights to the soil and other customary rights. The use of the pasture and forest lands, irrigation ca.n.a.ls, fisheries, and homestead plots and protection against enhancement of rent were some of their rights which were sacrificed. In fact the tenantry of Bengal was left entirely at the mercy of the zamindars. This was done so that the zamindars might be able to pay in time the exorbitant land revenue demand of the Company. Secondly, the zamindars were to give, 10/11th of the rental they derived from the peasantry to the state, keeping only 1/11th for themselves. But the sums to be paid by them as land revenue were fixed in perpetuity. If the rental of a zamindar.s estate increased due to extension of cultivation and improvement in agriculture, or his capacity to extract more from hla tenants, or any other reason, he would keep the entire amount of the increase. The slate would not make any further demand upon him. At the same time, the zamindar had to pay his revenue rigidly on the due date even if the crop had failed for some reason; otherwise his lands were to be sold.

The initial fixation of revenue was made arbitrarily and without any consultation with the zamindars. The attempt of the officials was to secure the maximum amount. As a result, the rates of levenue were fixed very high. John Sh.o.r.e, the man who planned the Permanent Settlement and later succeeded Cornwallis as Governor-General, calculated that if the gross produce of Bengal be taken as 100, the Government claimed 45, zamindars and other intermediaries below them received 15, and only 40 remained with the actual cultivator.

It was later generally admitted by officials and non-officials alike that before 1793 the zamindars of Bengal and Bihar did not enjoy proprietary rights over most of the land. The question then arises; why did the British recognise them as such? One explanation is that this was in part the result of a misunderstanding. In England, the central figure in agriculture at the time was the landlord and the British officials made the mistake of thinking that the zamindar was his Indian counterpart. It is, however, to be noted that in one crucial respect the British officials clearly differentiated between the positions of the two. The landlord in Britain was the owner of land not only in relation to the tenant but also m relation to the state. But in Bengal while the zamindar was landlord over the tenant, he was further subordinated to the state. In fact he was reduced virtually to the status of a tenant of the East India Company, In contrast to the British landlord, who paid a small share of his income as land tax, he had to pay as 1ax 10/11th of his income from the land of which he was supposed to be the owner; and he could be turned out of the land unceremoniously and his estate sold if he failed to pay the revenue in time.

Other historians think that the decision to recognise the zamindars as the proprietors of land was basically determined by political, financial, and administrative expediency. Here the guiding factors were three. The first arose out of clever statecraft: the need to create political allies. The British officials realised that as they were foreigners in India, their rule would be unstable unless they acquired local supporters who would act as a buffer between them and the people of India. This argument had immediate importance as there were a large number of popular revolts in Bengal during the last quarter of the 18th century. So they brought into existence a wealthy aiid privileged cla.s.s of zamindars which owed its existence to British rule and which would, therefore, be Compelled by its own basic interests to support it. This expectation was, in fact, fully justified later when the zamindars as a cla.s.s supported the foreign government in opposition to the rising movement for freedom, Second, and perhaps the predominant motive, was that of financial security. Before 1793 the Company was troubled by fluctuations in its chief source of income, the land revenue. The Permanent Settlement guaranteed the stability of income. The newly created property of the zamindars acted as a secuiily of this. Moreover, the Permanent Settlement enabled the Company to maximise its income as land revenue was now fixed higher than it had ever been in the past. Collection of revenue through a small number of zammdars seemed to be much simpler and cheaper than the process of dealing with lakhs of cultivators. Thirdly, the Permanent Settlement was expected to increase agricultural production. Since the land revenue would not be increased in future even if the zamindar.s income went up, the latter would be inspired to extend cultivation and improve agricultural productivity.

The Permanent Zamindari Settlement was later extended to Orissa, the Northern Districts of Madras, and the District of Varanasi.

In parts of Central India and Avadh the British introduced a temporary zamindari settlement under which the zamindars were made owners of land but the revenue they had to pay was revised periodically. Another group of landlords was created all over India when the Government started the practice of giving land to persons who had rendered faithful service to the foreign rulers.

Ryotwari Settlement: The establishment of British rule in South and South-Western India brought new problems of land settlement. The officials believed that in these regions there were no zamindars with large estates with whom settlement of land revenue could be made and that the introduction of zamindari system would upset the existing state of affairs. Many Madras officials led by Reed and Munro recommended that settlement should therefore be made directly with the actual cultivators. They also pointed out that under the Permanent Settlement the Company was a financial loser as it had to share the revenues with the zamindars and could not claim a share of the growing income from land. Moreover, the cultivator was left at the mercy of the zamindar who could oppress him at will. Under the system they proposed, which is known as the Ryotwari Settlement, the cultivator was to be recognised as the owner of his plot of land subject to the payment of land revenue. The supporters of the Ryotwari system claimed that it was a continuation of the state of affairs that had existed in the past. Munro said: "It is the system which has always prevailed in India1The Ryotwari Settlement was in the end introduced in parts of the Madras and Bombay Presidencies in the beginning of the 19th century. The settlement under the Ryotwari system tvas not made permanent. It was revised periodically after 20 to 30 years when the revenue demand was usually raised.

The Ryotwari Settlement did not bring into existence a system of peasant ownership. The peasant soon discovered that the large number of zamindars had been replaced by one giant zamindar-the state In fact, thfe Government later openly claimed that land revenue was rent and not a tax. The ryot.s rights of ownership of his land were also negated by three other factors: (1) In most areas the land revenue fixed was exorbitant; the ryot was hardly left with bare maintenance even in the best of seasons. For instance, in Madras the Government claim was Axed as high as 45 to 55 per cent of gross production in the earlier settlement. The situation was nearly as bad in Bombay. (2) The Government retained the right to enhance land revenue at will. (3) The ryot had to pay revenue even when his produce was partially or wholly destroyed by drought or floods.

Mahalwari System: A modified version of the zamindari settlement, introduced in the Gangetic valley, the North-West Provinces, parts of Central India, and the Punjab, was known as the Mahalwari System. The revenue settlement was to be made village by village or estate (mahal) by estate with landlords or heads of families who collectively claimed to be the landlords of the village or the estate. In the Punjab a modified Mahalwari System known as the village system was introduced. In Mahalwari areas also, the land revenue was periodically revised.

Both the Zamindari and the Ryotwari systems departed fundamentally from the traditional land systems of the country. The British created a new form of private property in land in such a way that the benefit of the innovation did not go to the cultivators. All over the country land was now made salable, mortgagable, and alienable. This was done primarily to protect the Government"s revenue. If land had not been made transferable or salable, the Government would find it very difficult to realise revenue from a cultivator who had no savings or possessions out of which to pay it. Now he could borrow money on the security of his land or even >11 part of it and pay his land revenue. If he refused to do so, the Government could and often did auction his land and realise the amount. Another reason for introducing private ownership in land was provided by the belief that only right of ownership would make the landlord or the ryot exert himself in making improvements.

The British by making land a commodity which could be freely bought and sold introduced a fundamental change in the existing land systems of the country. The stability and the continuity of the Indian villages were shaken. In fact, the entire structure of rural society began to break up.

EXERCISES.

Trace the evolution of the East India Company"s relations with the British state, from 1765 to 1833. Bring out the major factors which influenced these relations.

2. Examine critically the commercial policy pursued by Britain in India from 1757 to 1857.

3. In what way did the British land revenue policy transform agrarian relations in India?

4. Write short notes oft:

(a) The Regulating Act of 1773 and the powers of the Governor-Gsr"eval; (b) The Industrial Revolution; (c) The drain of wealth from (d) Development of the Railways.

CHAPTER VI.

Administrative Organisation and Social and Cultural Policy W.

E have seen in the previous chapter that by 1784 the East India Company.s administration of India had been brought under its control by the British Government and that its economic policies were being determined by the needs of British economy. We v/ill now discuss the organisation through which the Company administered its recently acquired dominion.

In the beginning the Company left the administration of its possessions in India in Indian hands, confining its activities to supervision. But it soon found "that British aims were not adequately served by following old methods of administration. Consequently, tbe Company took all aspects of administration in its own hand, Under Warren Hastings and Cornwallis, the administration of Bengal was completely overhauled and the foundations of a new system based on the English pattern laid. The spread of British power to new areas, new problems, new needs, new experiences and new ideas led to changes in the system of administration. But the overall objectives of imperialism were never forgotten.

The British administration in India was based on three pillars: the Civil Service, the Army, and the Police. This was so for two reasons. For one, the chief aim of British-Indian administration was the maintenance of law and order and the perpetuation of British rule. Without law and order British merchants and British manufacturers could not hope to sell their goods in every nook and corner of India. Again, the British, being foreigners, could not hope to win the affections of the Indian people; they, therefore, relied on superior force rather than on public support for the maintenance 0f their control over India. "Hie Duke of Wellington, who had served in India tfnder his brother, Lord Wellesley, remarked after his return to Europe; Tbe system of Government in India, ,the foundation of authority, and the modes of supporting it and of carrying On the operation* of government arc entirely different from the systems and modes adopted in Europefor the tame purpose.... The foundation tad the Instrument of all power there Is the sword.

Civil Service The Civil Service was brought into existence by Lord Cornwallis. As we have seen in an earlier chapter, the East India Company had from the beginning carried on its trade in the East through servants who were paid low wages but who were permitted to trade privately. Later, when the Company became a territorial power, the same servants a.s.sumed administrative functions. They now became extremely corrupt, By oppressing local weavers and artisans, merchants, and zamindars, by extorting bribes and "gifts. from rajas and nawabs, and by indulging in illegal private trade, they ama.s.sed uotold wealth with which they retired to England. Clive and Warren Hastings made attempts to put an end to their corruption, but were only partially successful.

Cornwallis, who came to India as Governor-General in 1786, was determined to purify the administration, but he realised that the Company.s servants would not give honest and efficient service so long as they were not given adequate salaries. He therefore enforced the rules against private trade and acceptance of presents and bribes by officials with strictness. At the same time, he raised the salaries of the Company.s servants. For example, the Collector of a district was to be paid Rs. 1500 a month and one per cent commission on the revenue collection of his district. In fact the Company"s Civil Service became the highest paid service in the world. Cornwallis also laid down that promotion in the Civil Service would be by seniority so that its members would remain independent of outside influence.

In 1800, Lord Wellesley pointed out that even though civil servants often ruled over vast areas, they came to India at the immature age of 18 or so and were given no regular training before starting on their jobs. They generally lacked knowledge of Indian languages. Wellesley therefore established the College of Fort William at Calcutta for the education of young recruits to the Civil Service. The Directors of the Company disapproved of his action and in 1806 replaced it by their own East Indian College at Haileybury in England.

Till 1853 all appointments to the Civil Service were made by the Directors of the East India Company who placated the members of the Board of Control by letting them make some of the nominations, The Directors fought hard to retain this lucrative and prized privilege and refused to surrender it even when their other economic and political privileges were taken away by Parliament. They lost it finally in 18S3 when the Charter Act decreed that all recruits to the Civil Service were to be selected through a compet.i.tive examination.

A special feature of the Indian Civil Service since the days of Cornwallis was the rigid and complete exclusion of Indians from it, It was laid down officially in 1793 that all higher posts in administration worth more than 500 a year in salary were to be held by Englishmen. This policy was also applied to other branches of Government, such as the army, police, judiciary, engineering. In the words of John Sh.o.r.e, who succeeded Cornwallis: The fundamental principle of the English had been to make the whole Indian nation subservient, in every possible way, to the interests and benefits of ourselves. The Indians have been excluded From every honour, dignity, or office, which the lowest Englishmen could be prevailed to accept.

Why did the British follow such a policy? Many factors combined to produce it. For one, they were convinced that an administration based on British ideas, inst.i.tutions, and practices could be firmly established only by English personnel. And, then, they did not trust the ability and integrity of the Indians. For example, Charles Grant, Chairman of the Court of Directors, condemned the people of India as "a race of men lamentably degenerate and base; retaining but a feeble sense of moral obligation;... and sunk in misery by their vices." Similarly, Cornwallis believed that "Every native of Hindustan is corrupt". It may be noted that this criticism did apply to some extent to a small cla.s.s of Indian officials and zamind&rs of the time. But, then, it was equally if not more true of British officials in India, In fact, Cornwallis had proposed to give them high salaries in order to help them resist temptations and to become honest and obedient. But he never thought of applying the same remedy of adequate salaries to eradicate corruption among Indian officials, In reality, the exclusion of Indians from higher grades of services was a deliberate policy. These services were required at the time to establish and consolidate British rule in India. Obviously the task could not be left to Indians who did not possess the same instinctive sympathy for, and understanding of, British interests as Englishmen. Moreover, the influential cla.s.ses of British society were keen to preserve the monopoly of lucrative appointments in the Indian Civil Service and other services for their sons. In fact they fought tooth and nail among themselves over these appointments. The right to make them was a perpetual bone of contention between the Directors of the Company and the members of the British Cabinet. How could the English then agree to let Indians occupy these posts? Indians were, however, recruited in large numbers to fill subordinate posts as they were cheaper and much more readily available than Englishmen.

The Indian Civil Service gradually developed into one of the most efficient and powerful civil services in the world. Its members exercised vast power and often partic.i.p.ated ,in the making of policy. They developed certain traditions of independence, integrity, and hard work, though these qualities obviously served British and not Indian interests, At the same time they gradually came to form a rigid and exclusive and proud caste with an extremely conservative and narrow outlook. They came (o believe that they had an almost Divine right to rule India. The Indian Civil Service has often been called the steel frame1 which reared and sustained British rule in India. In course of time it became the chief opponent of all that was progressive and advanced in Indian life and one of the main targets of attack by the rising Indian national movement.

Army The second important pillar of the British regime in India was the army. It fulfilled three important functions. Jt was the instrument through which the Indian powers were conquered; it defended the British Empire in India from foreign rivals; and it safeguarded British supremacy from the ever-present threat of internal revolt.

The bulk of the Company.s army consisted of Indian soldiers, recruited chiefly from the area at present included in U.P. and Bihar. For instance, in 1857, the strength of the army in India was 311,400 of whom 265,900 were Indians. Its officers were, however, exclusively British, at least since the days of Cornwallis. In 1856, only three Indians in the army recieved a salary of Rs. 300 per month and the highest Indian officer was a subedar. A large number of Indian troops had to be employed as British troops were far too expensive. Moreover, the population of Britain was perhaps too small to provide the large soldiery needed for the conquest of India. As a counterweight, the army was officered entirely by British officials and a certain number of British troops were maintained to keep the Indian soldiers under control. Even so, it appears surprising today that a handful of foreigners coul d conquer and control India with a predominantly Indian army. This was possible because of two factors. On the one hand, there was absence of modem nationalism in the country at the time. A soldier from Bihar or Avadh did not think, and could not have thought, that in helping the Company defeat the Marathas or the Punjabis he was being anti-Indian- On the other, the Indian soldier had a long tradition of loyally serving those who paid his salary. This was popularly known as loyalty to the salt. In other words, the Indian soldier was a good mercenary, and the Company on its part was a good paymaster. It paid its soldiers regularly and well, something that the Indian rulers and chieftains were no longer dping.

Police The third pillar of British rule was the police whose creator was once again Cornwallis. He relieved (He zamindars of" their police.functions and, established a regular police force to maintain law and* order. In this respect, he went, back to, and modernized, the old Indian system <5f thaws.="" interestingly,="" this="" put="" india="" ahead="" of="" britain="" where="" a="" system="" of="" police="" had="" not="" developed="" yet.="" cornwallis="" established="" a="" system="" of="" circles="" or="" thanas="" headed="" "by="" a="" daroga,="" who="" was="" an="" indian.="" later,="" the="" post="" of="" the="" district="" superintendent="" of="" police="" was="" created="" to="" head="" the="" police="" organisation="" in="" a="" district.="" once="" again,="" indians="" were="" excluded="" from="" all="" superior="" posts.="" in="" the="" villages="" the="" duties="" of="" the="" police="" continued="" to="" be="" performed="" by="" village-watchmen="" who="" were="" maintained="" by="" the="" villagers.="" the="" police="" gradually="" succeeded="" in="" reducing="" major="" crimes="" such="" as="" dacoity.="" one="" of="" its="" major="" achievements="" was="" the="" suppression="" of="" thugs="" who="" robbed="" and="" killed="" travellers="" on="" the="" highways,="" particularly="" in="" central="" india.="" the="" police="" also="" prevented="" the="" organisation="" of="" a="" large-="" scale="" conspiracy="" against="" foreign="" control,="" and="" when="" the="" national="" movement="" arose,="" the="" police="" was="" used="" to="" suppress="" it.="" in="" its="" dealings="" with="" the="" people,="" the="" indian="" police="" adopted="" an="" unsympathetic="" att.i.tude.="" a="" committee="" of="" parliament="" reported="" in="" 1813="" that="" the="" police="" committed="" ""depradations="" on="" the="" peaceable="" inhabitants,="" of="" the="" same="" nature="" as="" those="" practised="" by="" the="" dacoits="" whom="" they="" were="" employed="" to="" suppress..="" .="" and="" william="" bentinck,="" the="" governor-general,="" wrote="" in="" 1832:="" as="" for="" the="" police="" 50="" far="" from="" being="" a="" protection="" to="" the="" people,="" i="" cannot="" letter="" ill.u.s.trate="" the="" public="" feeling="" regarding="" it,="" than="" by="" the="" following="" tact,="" that="" nothing="" can="" exceed="" the="" popularity="" of="" a="" recent="" regulation="" by="" which,="" if="" &="" robbery="" has="" been="" committed,="" the="" police="" are="" prevented="" [rom="" making="" any="" enquiry="" into="" it,="" eiccpt="" upon="" the="" requisition="" of="" the="" persons="" robbed:="" that="" is="" to="" say,="" the="" shepherd="" is="" a="" more="" rave-="" nous="" beast="" of="" prey="" than="" the="">

Judicial Organisation The British laid the foundations of a new system of dispensing justice through a hierarchy of civil and criminal courts. Though given a start by Warren Hastings, the system was stabilised by Cornwallis in 1793. In each district was established a Diwani Adafat, or civil court, presided over by the District Judge who belonged to the Civil Service. Cornwallis thus separated the posts of the Civil Judge and the Collector. Appeal from thei District Court lay first to four Provincial Courts of Civil Appeal and then, finally, to the Sadar Diwani Adalat. Below the District Court were Registrars. Courts, headed by Europeans, and a number of subordinate courts headed by Indian judges known as Munsifs and Amins. To deal with criminal cases, Cornwallis divided the Presidency of Bengal into four Divisions, in each of which a Court of Circuit presided over by the civil servants was established. Below these courts came a large number of; Indian, magistrates to try petty oases. Appeals from th Courts of Circuit lay. witft the Sadftr Nlzamat Adalat. The, criminal coorls applied Muslim Criminal j Law in. a. modified and less harsh form so that the teariflg apact of limbs and . such olherpumshmentswercprohibited, The eml ce>uc!s^0pyed ih ,< p="">

The British also established a new system of laws through the processes of enactment and codification of old laws. The traditional system of justice in India had been largely based on customary law which arose from long tradition and practice, though many laws were based on the shastras and sharial as well as on imperial authority. Though they continued to observe customary law in general, the British gradually evolved a new system of laws. They introduced regulations, codified the existing laws, and often systematised and modernised them through judicial interpretation. The Charter Act of 1833 conferred all lawmaking power on the Governor-General-in-Council. All this meant that Indians were now to live increasingly under man-made laws, which might be good or bad but which were openly the products of human rtason, and not under laws which had to be obeyed blindly and which could not be questioned as they were supposed to be divine and therefore sacred.

In 1833, the Government appointed a Law Commission headed by Lord Macaulay to codify Indian laws. Its labours eventually resulted in the Indian Penal Code, the Western-derived Codes of Civil and Criminal Procedure and other codes of laws. The same laws now prevailed all over the country and they were enforced by a uniform system of courts. Thus it may be said that India was judicially unified.

The Rule of Law The British introduced the modern concept of the rule of law. This meant that their administration was to be carried out, at least in theory, in obedience to laws, which clearly defined the rights, privileges, and obligations of the subjects and not according to the caprice or personal discretion of the ruler. In practice, of course, the bureaucracy and the police enjoyed arbitrary powers and interfered with the rights and liberties of the people. One important feature of the concept of the rule of law was that any official could be brought before a court of law for breaches of official duty or for acts done in excess of his official authority. The Tule of law was to some extent a guarantee of the personal liberty of a person. It is true that previous rulers of India had been in general bound by tradition and custotn. < but="" they="" always="" had="" the="" legal="" right-to="" take="" any="" administrative="" steps="" they="" wanted="" and="" there="" existed="" no="" other="" authority="" before="" whom="" their="" acts="" could="" be="" questioned.="" the="" indian="" rulers="" and="" chiefs="" sometimes="" exercised="" this="" power="" to="" do="" as="" they="" wanted.="" under="" british="" rule,="" on="" the="" other="" hand,="" administration="" was="" largely="" carried="" on="" according="" to="" laws="" as="" interpreted="" by="" the="" courts="" though="" the="" laws="" themselves="" were="" often="" defective,="" were="" made="" not="" by="" the="" people="" through="" a="" democratic="" process="" but="" autocratically="" by="" the="" foreign="" rulers,="" and="" left="" a="" great="" deal="" of="" power="" in="" the="" hands="" of="" the="" civil="" servants="" and="" the="" police.="" but="" that="" was="" perhaps="" inevitable="" in="" a="" foreign="" regime="" that="" could="" not="" in="" the="" very="" nature="" of="" things="" be="" democratic="" or="">

Equality before Law The Indian legal system under the British was based on the concept of equality before law. This meant that in the eyes of law all men were equal. The same law applied to all persons irrespective of their caste, religion, or cla.s.s. Previously, the judicial system had paid heed to caste distinctions and had differentiated between the so-called high-born and low-born. For the same crime lighter punishment was awarded to a Brahmin than to a non-Brahmin. Similarly, in practice zamindars and n.o.bles were not judged as harshly as the commoner. In fact, very often they could not be brought to justice at all for their actions. Now the humble could also move the machinery of justice.

There was, however, one exception to this excellent principle of equality before law. The Europeans and their descendants had separate courts and even laws, In criminal cases they could be tried only by European judges. Many English officials, military officers, planters, and merchants behaved with Indians in a haughty, harsh, and even brutal manner. When efforts were made to bring them to justice, they were given indirect and undue protection and consequently light or no punishment by many of the European judges before whom alone they could be tried. Consequently, miscarriage of justice occurred frequently, Iu practice, there emerged another type of legal inequality. Justice became quite expensive as court fees had to be paid, lawyers engaged, and the expenses of witnesses met. Courts were often situated in distant towns. Law suits dragged on for years. The complicated laws were beyond the grasp of the illiterate and ignorant peasants. Invariably, the rich could turn and twist the laws and courts to operate in their own favour. The mere threat to take a poor person through the long process of justice from the lower court to the highest court of appeal and thus to face him with complete ruin often sufficed to bring him to heel. More-over, the widespread prevalence of corruption in the ranks of the police and the rest of the administrative machinery led to the denial of justice. Officials often favoured the rich. The zamindars oppressed the ryots without fear of official action. In contrast, the system of justice that had prevailed in pre-British times was comparatively informal, speedy, and inexpensive. Thus, while the new judicial system marked a great step forward in so far as it was based on the laudable principles of the rule of law and equality before law and on rational and humane man-made laws, it was a retrograde step in some other respects: it was now costlier and involved long delays.

Sodal and Cultural Policy We have seen that British authorities reorganised and regulated India.s economy in the interests of British trade and industry and organised a modern administrative system to guarantee order and security. Till 1813 they also followed a policy of non-interference in tbe religious, social, and cultural life of the country, hut after 1813 they took active steps to transform Indian society and culture. This followed the rise of new interests and new ideas in Britain during the 19th century. The Industrial Revolution, which had begun in the middle of the 18th century, and the consequent growth of industrial capitalism, were fast changing ali aspects of British society. The rising industrial interests wanted to make India a big market for their goods. This could not be accomplished merely by adhering to the policy of keeping peace, and required the partial trans-formation and modernisation of Indian society. And so, in the words of the historians Thompson and Garratt, "the mood and methods of the old brigandage were changing into those of modem industrialism and capitalism."

Science and techonology also opened new vistas of human progress. The 18th and 19th centuries witnessed a great ferment of new ideas in Britain and Europe which influenced the British outlook towards Indian problems. All over Europe "new att.i.tudes of mind, manners, and morals were appearing." The great French Revolution of 1789 with its message of Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity generated powerful democratic sentiments and unleashed the force of modem nationalism. In the realm of thought, the new trend was represented by Bacon, Locke, Voltaire, Rousseau, Kant, Adam Smith, and Bentham; in the realm of literature by Wordsworth, Byron, Sh.e.l.ley, and Charles d.i.c.kens. The impact of the new thought-the product of the intellectual revolution of the 18th century, the French Revolution, and the Industrial Revolution-was naturally felt in India and affected the official notions of government.

The three outstanding characteristics of the new thought were rationalism or faith in reason and science, humanism or love of man, and confidence in the capacity of man to progress. The rational and scientific att.i.tude indicated that only that was true which was in conformity with human reason and capable of being tested in practice. The scientific progress of the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries and the tremendous powers of production released by the application of science to industry were visible proofs of the power of human reason. Humanism was based on the belief that every human being was an end in himself and should be respected and prized as such. No man had the right to look upon another human being as a mere agent of his own happiness. The humanistic outlook gave birth to the doctrines of individualism, liberalism, and socialism. According to the doctrine of progress, ail societies must change with time: nothing was or could be static. Moreover, man had the capacity to remodel nature and society on rational and just lines.

The new currents of thought in Europe came into conflict with the old outlook and produced a clash of att.i.tudes among those who determined Indian policy or ran the Indian administration. The older att.i.tude, known as the conservative or traditional att.i.tude, was that of making as few changes in India as possible. The early representative!) of this att.i.tude were Warren Hastings and Edmund Burke, the famous writer and parliamentarian, and the later ones were the famous officials Munro, Malcolm, Elphinstone, and Metcalfe. The conservatives maintained that Indian civilisation was different from European civilisation but was not necessarily inferior to it. Many of them respected and admired Indian philosophy and culture. Realising that it might be necessary to introduce some Western ideas and practices, they proposed to introduce them very very cautiously and gradually. Favouring social stability above all, they opposed any programme of rapid modernisation. Sweeping or hasty innovations, they felt, would produce a violent reaction in the country. The conservative outlook remained influential in England as well as in India up to the very end of British rule. In fact, the majority of British officials in India were generally of conservative persuation. But among the policy makers in Britain it was a gradually diminishing view because the course of trade and events was showing that the conservative policy did not lead to the desired expansion of trade or provide adequately for the perpetuation of British supremacy.

By 1800 the conservative att.i.tude was fast giving way to a new att.i.tude which was sharply critical of Indian society and culture. Indian civilisation was condemned as static; it was looked down upon with contempt, Indian customs were considered uncivilised, Indian inst.i.tutions corrupt and decadent, and Indian thought narrow and unscientific. This critical approach was used by most of the officials and writers and statesmen of Britain to justify political and economic enslavement of India and to proclaim that it was incapable of improvement and must therefore remain permanently under British tutelage. However, a few Englishmen, known as Radicals, went beyond this narrow criticism and imperialistic outlook and applied the advanced humanistic and rational thought of the West to the Indian situation as they saw it. The doctrine of reason led them to believe that India need not always be a fallen country for all societies had the capacity to improve by following the dictates of reason and science. The doctrine of humanism led them to desire the improvement of Indian people. The doctrine or progress led them to the conviction that Indians were bound to improve. And so the Radicals, representing the better elements of British society, desired to make India a part of the modern progressive world of science and humanism.

The humanism of these men was aroused by the social injustice of such inst.i.tutions as the caste system and untouchability, such customs as Sail and infanticide, and the low status of women in general and of widows in particular. Their scientific minds were also outraged by the many superst.i.tions that gripped the minds of the Indian people and by the complete absence of the scientific outlook in the country. To them, the answer to India.s ills appeared to lie in the introduction of modern Western sciences, philosophy, and literature-in fact, in all out and rapid modernisation. The Radicals got an opportunity to influence Indian policies through James Mill, one of the leading Radical philosophers of England, who came to occupy in 1817 the very important position of Chief Examiner in the office of the Court of Directors, and William Bentinck, who was a Radical and who became the Governor-General of India in 1829. Also some of the officials who came to India in the 1820.s and after were deeply influenced by the Radical outlook. Moreover, the reforming Whigs were in power in England after 1830.

It must, however, be emphasised at this stage that such honest and philanthropic Englishmen were few and that their influence was never decisive so far as the British administration of India was concerned. The ruling elements in British-Indian administration continued to be imperialistic and exploitative. They would accept new ideas and adopt reformist measures only if, and to the extent that, they did not come into conflict wdth commercial interests and profit motives. Modernisation of India had to occur within the broad limits imposed by the needs of easier and more thorough-going exploitation of its resources. Thus modernisation of India was accepted by many English officials, businessmen, and statesmen because it was expected to make Indians belter customers of British goods and reconcile them to the alien rule. In fact many of the Radicals themselves no longer remained true to their own beliefs when they discussed Indian policy. Instead of working for a democratic government, as they did in Britain, they demanded a more authoritarian regime, described by them as paternalistic. In this respect they were at one with the conservatives who too were ardent champions of u paternalism which would treat the Indian people as children and keep them out of the administration. The basic dilemma before the British administrators in India was that while British interests in India could not be served without some modernisation, full modernisation would generate forces which would go against their interests and would in the long run endanger British supremacy in the country. They had, therefore, to follow a delicately balanced policy of partial modernisation, that is, a policy of introducing modernisation in some respects and blocking and preventing it in other respccts.

The policy of modernising Indian society and culture was also encouraged by the Christian missionaries and religious-minded persons such as William Wilberforce and Charles Grant, the Chairman of the Court of Directors of the East India Company, who wanted to spread Christianity in India. They too adopted a critical att.i.tude towards Indian society but on religious grounds. They pa.s.sionately believed that Christianity alone was the true religion and that all other religions were false; those who,,believed in such religions were to them "heathens", pagans. and even semi-barbarians.. They supported a programme of Westernisation in the hope that it would eventually lead to the country"s conversion to Christianity. They thought that the light of Western knowledge would destroy people.s faith in tbeir own religions and lead them to welcome and embrace Christianity, They therefore opened modem schools, colleges, and hospitals in the country. The missionaries were, however, often most unwilling allies of the rationalist Radicals whose scientific approach undermined not only Hindu or Muslim mythology but Christian mythology as well. As Prof. H.H. Dodwell has pointed out: "Taught to question the validity of their own G.o.ds, they (the westernised Indians) questioned also the validity of the Bible and the truth of its narrative." The missionaries also supported the paternalistic imperialistic policies since they looked upon law and order and British supremacy as essential for their work of religious propaganda. They also sought the support of British merchants and manufacturers by holding out the hope that Christian converts would be better customers of their goods.

The Radicals were given strong support by Raja Rammohun Roy and other like-minded Indians, who were conscious of the low state to which their country and society had sunk, who were sick of caste prejudices and other social evils, and who believed that the salvation of India lay in science and humanism. We will discuss the outlook and activities of these Indians at length in the next chapter.

Other reasons why the Government of India followed a policy of can** tious and gradual innovation and not of all out modernisation were continuous prevalence of the conservative outlook among the British officials in India and the belief that interference with, their religious beliefs and social customs might produce a revolutionary reaction among the Indian people. Even the most ardent Radicals paid heed to this warning for, along with the other members of the British governing cla.s.ses, they too desired most of all the safety and perpetuation of British rule in India. Every other consideration was of secondary importance. As a matter of fact, the policy of modernisation was gradually abandoned after 1B58 as Indians proved apt pupils, shifted rapidly towards modernisation of their society and a.s.sertion of their culture, and demanded to be ruled in accordance with the modem principles of liberty, equality and nationality.

Hnmanitariam Measures The official British efforts at reforming Indian society of its abuses were on the whole very meagre and, therefore, bore little fruit. Their biggest achievement was the outlawing of the practice of Sati in 1829 when William Bentinck mait a crime to a.s.sociate in any way with the burning of a widow on her husband.s funeral pyre. Earlier the British rulers had been apathetic and afraid of arousing the anger of the orthodox Indians. It was only after Rammohun Roy and other enlightened Indians and the missionaries agitated persistently for the abolition of this

Prev List Next