Presidencies and provinces of British India

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search "British India" redirects here. For other uses, see British India (disambiguation).

A Mezzotint engraving of Fort William, Calcutta, which formed the Bengal Presidency in British India 1735. Provinces of India, earlier Presidencies of British India, still earlier, Presidency towns, and collectively British India, were the administrative units of the territories of India under the tenancy or the sovereignty of either the English East India Company or the British Crown between 1612 and 1947. The term "British India" has also been used secondarily as a shortened form for "the British nation in India."[1]

[edit] British India

Colonial India
Portuguese India 1510 1961

Dutch India

1605 1825 1696 1869 1759 1954

Danish India

French India

British India 16131947 East India Company 1612 1757

Company rule in India 1757 1857 British Raj 1858 1947 1824 1948 1765 1947 1947

British rule in Burma

Princely states

Partition of India

This box: view talk edit

The East India Company established its first permanent factory in India in 1612. For the next century and a half the Company functioned primarily as a trading company, establishing trading posts with the permission of the Mughal emperor of India and competing for business with other European trading companies.[2] However, following the decline of the Mughal Empire in 1707 and after the East India Company's victory at the Battle of Plassey in 1757, the Company gradually began to formally administer its expanding dominions.[3] By the mid-19th century, the East India Company had become the paramount political and military power on the subcontinent, its territory held in trust for the British Crown.[4] Company rule in India, however, ended with the Government of India Act 1858 following the events of the Indian rebellion of 1857.[4] British India was thereafter directly ruled by the British Crown as a colonial possession of the United Kingdom, and India was officially known after 1876 as the Empire of India.[5] India consisted of regions

referred to as British India that were directly administered by the British,[6] and other regions, the Princely States,[7] that were ruled by Indian rulers. These rulers were allowed a measure of internal autonomy in exchange for British suzerainty. British India constituted a significant portion of India both in area and population; in 1910, for example, it covered approximately 54% of the area and included over 77% of the population.[8] In addition, there were Portuguese and French exclaves in India. Independence from British rule was achieved in 1947 with the formation of the Dominions of India and Pakistan, the latter also including present-day Bangladesh. The term British India also applied to Burma (Myanmar) for a shorter time period: starting in 1824, a small part of Burma, and by 1886, almost two thirds of Burma had come under British India.[6] This arrangement lasted until 1937, when Burma commenced being administered as a separate British colony. British India did not apply to other countries in the region, such as Sri Lanka (then Ceylon), which was a British Crown Colony, or the Maldive Islands, which were a British protectorate. At its greatest extent, in the early 20th-century, the territory of British India (shown in the second map in two shades of pink) extended as far as the frontiers of Persia in the west; Afghanistan in the northwest; Tibet in the northeast; and China, French Indo-China and Siam in the east. It also included the Colony of Aden in the Arabian Peninsula.[9] Crown.[10]

[edit] Presidencies of British India (17651858)

Map of India in 1765

Map of India in 1795

Map of India in 1805

Map of India in 1823

Map of India in 1837

Map of India in 1848

Map of India in 1857

Expansion of British Bengal and Burma

After Robert Clive's victory in the Battle of Plassey in 1757, the puppet government of a new Nawab of Bengal, was maintained by the East India Company.[11] However, after the

invasion of Bengal by the Nawab of Oudh in 1764 and his subsequent defeat in the Battle of Buxar, the Company obtained the Diwani of Bengal, which included the right to administer and collect land-revenue (land tax) in Bengal, the region of present-day Bangladesh, West Bengal and Bihar.[11] In 1772, the Company also obtained the Nizmat of Bengal (the "exercise of criminal jurisdiction") and thereby full sovereignty of the expanded Bengal Presidency.[11] During the period, 1773 to 1785, very little changed; the only exceptions were the addition of the dominions of the Raja of Banares to the western boundary of the Bengal Presidency, and the addition of Salsette Island to the Bombay Presidency.[12] Portions of the Kingdom of Mysore were annexed to the Madras Presidency after the Third Anglo-Mysore War ended in 1792. Next, in 1799, after the defeat of Tipu Sultan in the Fourth Anglo-Mysore War more of his territory was annexed to the Madras Presidency.[12] In 1801, Carnatic, which had been under the suzerainty of the Company, began to be directly administered by it as a part of the Madras Presidency.[13]

North-Western Provinces, constituted in 1836 Punjab annexed in Oudh annexed in from erstwhile Ceded and Conquered Provinces 1849 1856

Madras Presidency: Expanded in the mid-to-late 18th century Carnatic Wars and Anglo-Mysore Wars. Bombay Presidency: expanded after the Anglo-Maratha Wars. Bengal Presidency: Expanded after the battles of Plassey (1757) and Buxar (1764), and after the Second and Third Anglo-Maratha Wars. Ajmer-Merwara-Kekri: ceded by Sindhia of Gwalior in 1818 at the conclusion of the Third Anglo-Maratha War. Coorg: Annexed in 1834. Ceded and Conquered Provinces: Established in 1802 within the Bengal Presidency. Proposed to be renamed the Presidency of Agra under a Governor in 1835, but proposal not implemented. North-Western Provinces: established as a Lieutenant-Governorship in 1836 from the erstwhile Ceded and Conquered Provinces Sind annexed to the Bombay Presidency in 1843. Punjab: Established in 1849 from territories captured in the Anglo-Sikh Wars. Nagpur Province: Created in 1853 from the princely state of Nagpur, seized by the doctrine of lapse. Merged into the Central Provinces in 1861. Oudh annexed in 1856 and governed thereafter until 1905 as a Chief Commissionership, as a part of North-Western Provinces and Oudh.

[edit] Provinces of India (18581947)

The British Indian A map of the British Empire in 1880, when, The British Indian Empire in 1893, after Indian Empire in three years after the 1907 during the formal name-change to the annexation of Upper Burma and partition of Bengal "Empire of India," it incorporation of (19051911) was still being called Baluchistan "British India.")

The Indian Empire in 1915 after the reunification of Bengal and the creation of the separate provinces of Bihar, Orissa, and Assam.

Central Provinces: Created in 1861 from Nagpur Province and the Saugor and Nerbudda Territories. Berar administered since 1903, renamed the Central Provinces and Berar in 1936. Burma: Lower Burma annexed 1852, established as a province in 1862, Upper Burma incorporated in 1886. Separated from British India in 1937 to become administered independently by the newly established British Government Burma Office. Assam: separated from Bengal in 1874. Andaman and Nicobar Islands: established as a province in 1875. Baluchistan: Organized into a province in 1887.

Madras Presidency shown in an 1880 map.

Bombay Presidency in an 1880 map.

Bengal Presidency in 1880

An 1880 map of 1908 map of Central Beluchistan, shown as Central Provinces. The Provinces and Berar. Beluchistan, shown a part of the British province had been Berar was included in as an independent Indian Empire in a constituted in 1861. 1903.

kingdom along with Afghanistan and 1908 map. Turkestan, in an 1880 map.

North-West Frontier Province: created in 1901 from the north-western districts of Punjab Province. East Bengal: separated from Bengal from 1905. Re-merged with Bengal in 1912 Bihar and Orissa: separated from Bengal in 1912. Renamed Bihar in 1935 when Orissa became a separate province. Delhi: Separated from Punjab in 1912, when it became the capital of British India. Aden: separated from Bombay Presidency to become province of India in 1932; separated from India and made the Crown Colony of Aden in 1937. Orissa: Separated from Bihar in 1935. Sindh: Separated from Bombay in 1935. Panth-Piploda: made a province in 1942, from territories ceded by a native ruler.

[edit] Major Provinces

A map of the British Indian Empire in 1909 during the partition of Bengal (19051911), showing British India in two shades of pink (coral and pale) and the princely states in yellow. At the turn of the 20th century, British India consisted of eight provinces that were administered either by a Governor or a Lieutenant-Governor. The following table lists their areas and populations (but does not include those of the dependent Native States):[14] During the partition of Bengal (19051911), a new province, Assam and East Bengal was created as a Lieutenant-Governorship. In 1911, East Bengal was reunited with Bengal, and the new provinces in the east became: Assam, Bengal, Bihar and Orissa.[14] Province of British India[14] Burma Area (in thousands Population (in millions Chief Administrative of square miles) of inhabitants) Officer 170 9 Lieutenant-Governor

Bengal Madras Bombay United Provinces Central Provinces and Berar Punjab Assam

151 142 123 107 104 97 49

75 38 19 48 13 20 6

Lieutenant-Governor Governor-in-Council Governor-in-Council Lieutenant-Governor Chief Commissioner Lieutenant-Governor Chief Commissioner

[edit] Minor Provinces

In addition, there were a few minor provinces that were administered by a Chief Commissioner:[15] Minor Province[15] North West Frontier Province British Baluchistan Coorg Ajmer-Merwara Andaman and Nicobar Islands Area (in thousands of square miles) 16 46 1.6 2.7 3 Population (in thousands of inhabitants) 2,125 308 181 477 25

Chief Administrative Officer Chief Commissioner British Political Agent in Baluchistan served as ex-officio Chief Commissioner British Resident in Mysore served as ex-officio Chief Commissioner British Political Agent in Rajputana served as ex-officio Chief Commissioner Chief Commissioner

[edit] Provinces at independence, 1947

At Independence in 1947, British India had seventeen provinces:

Ajmer-Merwara-Kekri Andaman and Nicobar Islands Assam Baluchistan Bengal Province Bihar Bombay Province Central Provinces and Berar Coorg

Delhi Province Madras Province North-West Frontier Province Panth-Piploda Orissa Punjab Sindh United Provinces of Agra and Oudh

Upon the Partition of India into Union of India and Dominion of Pakistan, twelve provinces (Ajmer-Merwara-Kekri, Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Assam, Bihar, Bombay, Central Provinces and Berar, Coorg, Delhi, Madras, Panth-Piploda, Orissa, and the United Provinces) became provinces within India, three (Baluchistan, North-West Frontier, and Sindh) within Pakistan, and two (Bengal and Punjab) were partitioned between India and Pakistan. In 1950, after the new Indian Constitution was adopted, the provinces in India were replaced by redrawn states and union territories. Pakistan, however, retained its five provinces, one of which, East Bengal, was renamed East Pakistan in 1956 and became the independent nation of Bangladesh in 1971. THE COMING OF EUROPEAN COLONIALISM From the 15th century onwards the first European colonists had started visiting the shores of India.

From the 15th century onwards the first European colonists had started visiting the shores of India.

In the early 16th century, Portuguese rule was established on the West coast of India at Goa. But the Portuguese did not succeed in moving deep into the country, their domination remained confined to the coastal periphery. It was only the British who managed to take on the mantle of administering the country from the Mughals. But the British ascendency which began with the battle of Plassey in 1757, did represent the beginning of the end of feudalism in India. The century from 1757 to 1857 was the transitory stage from feudalism to the modern era. Thus in our country, the decline of

feudalism did not entirely come about due to its internal decay it was largely mediated through the intervention of European colonialism. But the decline of feudalism was facilitated by the general confusion that prevailed in the country after the eclipse of the Mughal empire as the executive authority of the country.

The interior of the Govind palace at Datia. The opulence and grandeur of the medieval palaces was unparalleled. The reason for this was that there manor was a status symbol for the feudal lords.

Though the Mughal empire did survive till 1857, its heyday can be considered to have come to an end in 1707, with the death of Aurangzeb. The Marathas could not rise to the status of being the central authority for the entire country though at one time their armies had marched upto Attock beyond Peshawar near today's Afghanistan-Pakistan border.

Like a flower blossoming from the water, the Palace at Udaipur sits aesthetically on the Lake.

For a brief period of 3 years from 1756 to 1759, the Marathas ruled Punjab and the Mughal emperor was a pensioner of the Marathas recelving an annual pension of as. 60,000 from Mahadji Shinde, the Maratha Sardar of Gwalior . The rebellious Governors of the Mughals and Marathas But the seeds of disintegration of feudalism had been sown during the reign of Aurangzeb itself, the sudden increase in tax incidence by re-imposition of the hated Jazia penalty (abolished by Emperor Akbar) on the majority of the subjects of the Mughal empire who were Hindus along with the general tendency of Nawabs (provincial governors) to delink their provinces, notably Bengal, Hyderabad and Oudh from the Mughal emperor's control, who increasingly became powerless to resist this tendency of his provincial governors. The Ghungat (veil) along with child-marriage is a gift of Muslim Rule to India. During Muslim Rule, the modesty of any lady was fair game for the Muslim chieftains. The example of Rani Padmani is well known. But there are innumerable unnammed Hindu women, whose modesty was violated during those dark days of the arbitrary Muslim rule. This tendency acted as a drain on the Mughal treasury; primarily due to the expenditure of the efforts to regain effective control over these rebellious Nawabs - and secondly by the loss of revenue from these lost provinces. Such distintegration of the Mughal empire also made it easier for the British to grab one province after another.

Traditional dresses of India. Indian garments are traditionally unstiched. Men use the Dhoti and the Angavastra The Dhoti is draped over the legs and the Angavastra is thrown across the shoulders. except that a part of the saree is pulled across the shoulders. Both Men and Women wear colourful garments The East India Company On behalf of the Brtish East India Company, the resourceful British Governor-General Robert Clive grabbed Bengal in 1757 from its governor Siraj-ud-doulah, Oudh fell from the hands of Wajid Ali Shah and the titular Mughal Emperor Bahadur Shah Zafar was himself packed off in 1857 after the abortive Sepoy Mutiny. Among the Marathas also this tendency towards disintegration due to rebellious governors like the Bhosales of Nagpur - who never accepted the authority of the Peshwa, the Holkars of Indore, the Gaikwads of Baroda and the Scindias of Gwalior distancing themselves from the authority of the Peshwa at Poona, ultimately caused the downfall of the Maratha empire.

Rani Laxmibai of Jhansi was one of the important leaders of the uprising of 1857 against the British. The uprising, despite its nationalistic overtones, was in its essence, a fight of the Indian feudal classes of kings and princes, against the new incoming imperial power of the British. The mass participation that characterised the freedom movement was to come in much later with Lokmanya Tilak and Mahatma Gandhi.

The general increase in defence expenditure which started with Aurangzeb's Deccan campaign against Shivaji, the firebrand Maratha leader; was kept up later by the numerous battles of Indian monarchs against each other and later against the East India Company. This was an important reason for commercial stagnation. This commercial stagnation of trade within the country was partly responsible for the absence of the rise of a significant merchant capital and its transformation into industrial capital in the 17th and 18th centuries when Indian merchants had established contacts with their European counterparts at Surat, Mumbai (Bombay), Chandranagore, Chennai (Madras), etc. As Indian chieftains and kings badly needed resources to finance their campaigns they levied arbitrary taxes and declared state monopolies over the trade in profitable commodities. Provincial governors often abused their positions to participate in trade either by directly starting trading ventures or by thrusting themselves as partners upon one or more Of the prospering merchants, and grabbing fat shares of their profits. These resources were used for financing military campaigns and also for the unproductive squander by the feudal princelings. The Lucknavai Gharana (Style) of the Kathak dance style

is an amalgam of the Indian and Central Asian Dance styles. The Jaipuri Gharana represents more closely the original dance style based on Bharatmuni's Natyashatra. Exclusive monopolies for the resale of superior foreign goods were declared much to the detriment of the Indian trading community and the profits were siphoned off to finance a lavish court and feudal lifestyle. The losses due to the imposition of such feudal privileges acted as a dead-weight on the nascent merchant capital, making it increasingly difficult for the emergence of a strong Indian manufacturing industry which required capital formation for its establishment. Had this been allowed an Indian industrial base could have been formed around the year 1800 itself as happened in Japan. But this was not to be and the task was left to the British. In the early days of British rule, the British Viceroys and other colonial administrators collaborated with the Indian feudal nobility to usurp this country. Unlike the fierce struggle between the Muslim monarchy and the Hindu landed nobility in the initial days of Muslim Occupation, the coming of the British power saw a smooth adjustment between the pre-British landed aristocracy and the colonial power. The Jagirdars and Inamdars generally became the Zamindars in the new set-up. The Zamindari System The reason why only the aristocracy rebelled in the Sepoy mutiny against the colonial power lies in the absence of religious fanaticism in the British colonialists like that in the early Muslim Sultans of Delhi. When British rule was established in Bengal and Oudh in the latter part of the 18th century, the colonial administration formed a class of intermediary revenue collectors who were drawn from the native landed nobility itself. These revenue collectors called Zamindars were basically different from the Jaqirdars and Subahdars of the Mughal period in that they did not have the admnistrative powers of the feudal lords of the Mughal period. True, the Zamindars had many arbitrary powers but this was never formally recognised and the British administration did not interfere with the zamindars till as.long as their arbitrary powers did not create a rival centre of power. To begin with no Zamindar had a private army, he could not dispense justice and he could levy no tax which was not sanctioned by the colonial administration . This prevented a Zamindar from becoming mini or a semi-independent ruler which the Jagirdars and Mansabdars could easily become under the Mughals. But it was not from these collaborators of British colonialism that the first Indian capitalists were to emerge. The Zamindars were the rural lackeys of the British colonialists who due to the rights of revenue collection conferred on them by the British, developed a vested interest in supporting the British colonial rule.

The marble craftsmanship seen here in the palace at Deeg - the capital of the Jat Raja Suraj Mal was superb. But in the 18th and 19th centuries, the continuation of such lavish mediaeval lifestyle of our princes and feudal lords was to prove counterproductive for industrialization and accumulation of capital. This coupled with our being under colonial rule made India miss the Industrial Revolution. The Sepoy Mutiny The Sepoy Mutiny can be called the last upsurge of Indian Feudalism. It was those princelings who were deprived of their kingdoms due to the many ploys of the British Colonial expansionist policy like "The Doctrine of Lapse" that activly participated in the Mutiny. The feudal counterparts of the Zamindars who participated in the last upsurge of Indian feudalism the mutiny in 1857 were wiped out by the colonial power between 1857 and 1860. Those of the princelings who did not support the mutiny and threw in their lot with the British, continued to hold nominal favour of the colonial power in the form of privy purses and princely titles. The development of Indian capitalism took place as an totally distinct process with its roots in the new cities like Bombay, Calcutta and Madras established by the British. The traditional merchants under Mughal and Maratha rule had not been in a position to accumulate capital - and establish manufacturing industries for various reasons like the unfavourable political conditions, the Islamic ban on usury and also lack of foresight.

The pierced marble work that the artisans of medieval India created was unmatched across the globe. But this tradition acted as a drain on our economy and prevented the emergence of the culture of thrift, savings and productive investment that we saw at work in London, Manchester and in Europe in general in the 19th century. This heralded the modern age in Europe, while India under colonial rule remained in the middle ages.

Gujaratis and Marwaris - The Nascent Indian Capitalist Merchant Class

The Indian industrial capitalist class thus came from a totally different background. Almost none of the Indian industry houses of the late 18th and early 19th centuries had the background of being feudal nobles, like Jagirdars or Inamdars. The Parsi merchants in western India were the first community from whom developed Indian industrialists, they were followed by the Hindu communities like the Gujaratis and Marwaris. But during the l9th century and first half of the 20th century it was overwhelmingly in England and not in India that industrial development received a boost. Hence in India the transition from a feudal land based agrarian economy to a modem industrial economy was brought about with a deformity due to the imperialist subjugation to boot. While such fine skilled craftsmanship was much relevant in the middle ages. With the coming of mechanization, and mass production, craftsmanship became irrelevant and a waste of manpower. Whenever the British saw competition from craftsmen, it suppressed their arts as in the case of the cutting off the thumbs of the skilled superfine saree weavers of Bengal. The policy of 'Great' Britain was of a systematic annihilation of Indian handicraft industries by exposing them to the ruinous competition from the cheap machine products coming from UK. The supply of cheap Indian raw materials and the dumping of finished products made from those raw materials filled the coffers of British industrialists while it drained India. Thus India was made to push from behind and pull from ahead the Chariot of Britain's industrial revolution. Even agriculture was drained off by the rapacious Zamindari system. In the Zamindari system the obscurantism and arbitrary privileges of India's feudal past were combined with the cold calculating rapacity o? British imperialism. India' s subjugation under the most advanced capitalist country of that age unleashed the wholesale pauperization of rural artisans and peasants and yet there was not accumulation of capital. The accumulation took place in Manchester and London. Thus after nearly two centuries of living through the twilight of two ages of the dying feudalism and the deformed nascent newborn Capitalism, we inherited an economy which bore the worst features of both feudalism and colonial capitallsm at the dawn of our independence.

The Mutiny of 1857 created the first stirrings of a national movement for securing Independence from the British. But in its essence, the Sepoy mutiny was a war fought by the Indian kings and princes to preserve their privileges and rights of succession, which were being threatened by the British policy of the "Doctrine of Lapse". The Sepoy Mutiny was a war of the feudal princes against a new incoming imperialist power of the British. The freedom movement that came later under Tilak and Gandhi was a mass struggle in its real sense. THE RETURN OF INDIAN SOVEREIGNTY On the midnight between August 14th and 15th, 1947 came to an end not just British rule of two centuries but alien domination which had begun nearly 750 years back when Indians had started losing their sovereignty to the Sultans of Delhi. The coming of independence after seven centuries of alien rule had been generally preceded by a brutal tyranny, where Indians had been made to pay a penal tax if they were not ready to disown their country, its culture and their ancestral faith: their places of worship had been arbitrarily desecrated and destroyed; their life and security and the honour of their womenfolk had been at the mercy of rulers who had contempt for everything Indian. (This was the general situation during Muslim rule} except during the reigns of Akbar and Jehangir and in the period after the death of Aurangzeb when Mughal power was on the decline and hence was not in a position to tyrannize its Hindu subjects.

Royal Insignia of the British. Up to the Sepoy Mutiny of 1857, the British Rule in India was in the hands of the British East India Company. After the Mutiny, the British Government directly handled the administration of British Rule.

A Pauperized Class of Landless Peasants This period was followed by subjugation under a European power that aimed at a systematic economic exploitation of this country. The only positive aspect of this passing of sovereignty from one alien ruler to another was the end of the arbitrary humiliation and the beginning of an orderly economic plunder! British economic imperialism created a pauperized artisan class and peasantry who formed into the proletariat employed in British owned and later Indian owned factories in the urban areas. The migration of the pauperised artisans and peasant was a phenomenon that occurred for the first time in Indian history. Many of these pauperised artisans and peasants had no land or profitable occupation left in the rural areas thus they migrated to the cities with empty hands. Even those who remained back in the villages had to cope up with the demands of the Zamindar representatives of British colonialism for revenue. Even the worst famines in the country's history that occured during British rule could not bring about even a temporary suspension of revenue collection. The colonial administration thus wanted its pound of flesh whether its victims were living or dying. Even in the best of times the lot of rural peasants was far from enviable and during such famines its misery was compounded manifold. This led to other problems of perpetual indebtedness, small size of individual holdings by sale of a part of land to the Zamindars and moneylenders, fragmentation of land, etc. Abolition of Zamindari and Tax on Agricultural Income After the end of British rule, the Indian National Government not only formally abolished Zamindari but also the income tax on agricultural produce and thus removed necessity for having any institution of intermediary revenue collectors between the farmers and the state that had existed from the post-Mauryan times till the British period. The situation today has some elements in common with that existing under the Mauryans. Only that the problems of over-population , disguised unemployment, rural indebtedness, smallness and fragmentation of holdings, etc., have been added.

The progress made in India under British Rule like the coming of railways, Postal System, Telegraphic communications, etc., were all undertaken by the British Administration to facilitate their rule. The aim of British policy was to integrate the Indian economy with that of the British in way such that India supplied Great Britain with cheap raw material for being manufactured into valued-added (costly) finished products. India again was to provide a ready captive market for British goods made from Indian raw materials. The resultant enrichment and industrial development was to take place in Britian and not in India. Thus at the dawn of independence, India inherited an economy that had the worst features of both the feudal and the industrial ages without the advantages of either. Looking Forward

The ills of Indian agriculture are reflected in the mass movement of the rural poor to the cities. Those of us whose families had migrated from the villages two or three generations back have today established themselves in the cities and some of us can be said to be prospering. In most cases our rural roots are forgotten, only to be remembered on the occasion of a wedding in the family during which religious convention requires that we go to our family Gods located in our ancestral villages, for getting the wedding or other ceremonies like thread ceremony, naming ceremony solemnized. Other occasions when rural India captures our attention is during farmers agitations, rasta rokos which block rail and road links between cities. The farmers demands for higher procurement prices and support prices catch a city dweller's attention as these prices ultimately hurt his pocket. But nevertheless it goes to establish that Indian urbanities are bound to have links with rural India and be affected by developments in rural India. Thus it would pay for an average Indian to be informed about the rural setting, its history and its problems which in other words is our own past as we all have sometime or the other moved from our rural ancestral homes to the urban areas. By doing this we would not only understand better our rural brethren, but would also understand ourselves better.

Royal Gardens such as this one generously used marble, gold and precious stone for inlay work. Such works of art that the artisans of medieval India created was unmatched across the globe. But overindulgence of the princelings with such opulence led to the frittering away of wealth of the nation.

_________________________________________ Now we move on to examine the essence of India - Hinduism and the influence it has had on other religious communities in India. We shall also examine how this influence has played an important role in shaping India's society for the past 3000 years from 1000 B.C.E. up to the present.