BRITISH COLONIALISM IN INDIA.

A research project submitted in partial fulfilment of the course World History, 3rd semester
during the Academic year 2019-2020.

SUBMITTED BY

Raghav Rahinwal

Roll no. 1956

B.A. LL.B. (Hons.)

SUBMITTED TO

Dr. Priya Darshini

Assistant Professor,

World History

SEPTEMBER, 2019

CHANAKYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY NYAYA

NAGAR MITHAPUR, PATNA-800001.

 DECLARATION BY THE CANDIDATE

I hereby declare that the work reported in the B.A.LL.B (Hons.) Project Report entitled “BRITISH

COLONIALISM IN INDIA” submitted at Chanakya National Law University, Patna is an

authentic record of my work carried out under the supervision of Dr. Priya Darshini. I have not

submitted this work elsewhere for any other degree or diploma. I am fully responsible for the contents

of my Project Report.

(Signature of the Candidate)

RAGHAV RAHINWAL.

Chanakya National Law University,

Patna.
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT.

A project is a joint endeavour which is to be accomplished with utmost compassion, diligence and
with support of all. Gratitude is a noble response of one’s soul to kindness or help generously
rendered by another and its acknowledgement is the duty and joyance. I am overwhelmed in all
humbleness and gratefulness to acknowledge from the bottom of my heart to all those who have
helped me to put these ideas, well above the level of simplicity and into something concrete
effectively and moreover on time.

This project would not have been completed without combined effort of my revered World History
teacher Prof. Dr. Priya Darshini whose support and guidance was the driving force to successfully
complete this project. I express my heartfelt gratitude to her. Thanks are also due to my parents,
family, siblings, my dear friends and all those who helped me in this project in any way. Last but
not the least, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to our teacher of Economics-I for
providing us with such a golden opportunity to showcase our talents. Also this project was
instrumental in making me understand more about the innovation and economic growth and the
factors affecting it.

Moreover, thanks to all those who helped me in any way be it words, presence,
encouragement or blessings.

- Raghav Rahinwal

- 3rd Semester

- B.A LL.B (Hons.)

 TABLE OF CONTENT.

Contents
DECLARATION BY THE CANDIDATE ....................................................................................................................... 2
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT. .......................................................................................................................................... 3
TABLE OF CONTENT. ............................................................................................................................................. 1
INTRODUCTION. .................................................................................................................................................... 2
EAST INDIA COMPANY. ......................................................................................................................................... 4
THE COMPANY’S REGULATION AND ITS EVOLUTION. .......................................................................................... 7
REVENUE SYSTEM AND ITS INFLUENCE ON ADMINISTRATION. ......................................................................... 11
FIRST WAR OF INDEPENDENCE, 1857. ................................................................................................................ 15
ADMINISTRATION UNDER THE CROWN. ............................................................................................................ 16
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ACT, 1858.................................................................................................................... 18
MONTAGUE-CHELSFORD REFORMS(GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ACT, 1919). ....................................................... 21
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ACT, 1935.................................................................................................................... 22
INDIAN INDEPENDENCE ACT, 1947. .................................................................................................................... 24
CONCLUSION....................................................................................................................................................... 26
BIBLIOGRAPHY. ................................................................................................................................................... 27

1
 INTRODUCTION.

Great Britain – there‘s a reason why Great Britain is called ―Great‖ Britain. Virtually every
part of the world was under their rule as their colonies – the epitome of colonization. Asia,
Africa, North America, South America, and Australia – nothing was left to be conquered; no
stone was left unturned. Administration of these empires was generally assumed to be the
same but it was not. The British Administration was different from those in their colonies
which underwent a huge process of evolution and had left a mark in the history of those
countries. Perhaps the most influenced countries were Canada and India – the latter of which
we shall focus on.

The influence of the British in India is huge – to the extent that most of our modern culture is
derived from British roots, along with the rich Indian heritage that has always been there for
thousands of years unchanged, unscathed as a shining jewel even in the dark days of the
world. The main language of communication is English, the clothes we wear are western
clothes, and in that context, we even shower thanks to the Englishmen!

No matter how profound the impact of the British in India is, Indians had an impact on the
western civilization too – not as deeply as the other way round though. To begin with, words
like verandah, juggernaut, bungalow exist because of Indians! So we can clearly see there is a
mix of cultures in the recent times as an impact of British rule in India; but was it always this
way? To answer that question, we have to first dive into the radix of the advent of the British

Empire‘s entry into India – what led to the magnificent rule of the westerners in India for
almost a period of 250 years. Quarter of a millennium is no joke and one is bound to behold
great changes in policies and scenario as it was travelling through time to be mature and as
close to perfect as it can be.

This brings us back to the question, so how did the British come in India in the first place?

The British had ongoing wars with some nations, which included the Spanish. The Spanish
were in control of Indian waters till 1588, and the British civilians could not venture out into
the troubled waters lest they be killed by the Spanish. In 1588, however the tables turned

2
during the reign of Queen Elizabeth I, the Spanish Armada was defeated by the British1 when
the British merchants could then venture out for the Eastern countries with the prior
permission of the crown.

1
Imperial Gazetteer of India vol. II 1908, p. 454.

3
 EAST INDIA COMPANY.

India was not new, and had been in trade relations with many countries since time
immemorial. During the 16th century, the Dutch and Portuguese had a strong foothold in
India. The British merchants sought to seek permission from the crown to establish trade
relations with the Asian countries, that is, namely the ―East Indies‖. After the defeat of the
Spanish Armada in 1951, the Queen granted power to merchants to sail into the Indian
Ocean. However, this was not under a formal company name now. Ships sailed from
England, around the Cape of Good Hope, then via the Arabian Peninsula, to Cape Comorin
and Malaysia, and returned. The first ship to return was in 1594. So, in 1596, a fresh fleet of
ships sailed into the Indian Ocean again, this time making huge profits. They sought to form a
corporation for exclusive trade rights into the East Indies, and were not successful in their
first attempt. On the second request, in 1600, the Queen granted a Royal Charter forming a
corporation coming to be known as ―Governor and Company of

Merchants of London trading into the Eat Indies.2 This charter granted them monopoly of
trade eastwards towards the Cape of Good Hope and westwards towards the Strait of
Magellan. This was one of the oldest East India Companies formed, and was in rivalry with
the already formed Dutch East India Company.

The British East India Company sought to establish trade relations with all the countries in
the East Indies, but ended up trading mainly with the Indian Subcontinent. Little was known
that this would be a source of political power and governance in those days that the company
initially formed for ―silent trade‖ would be so much more than just a source of revenue.

The Mughals were in their last phase when the British had entered and had become weak, so
they were readily accepted by the Islamic rulers in India. The East India Company was very
aggressive towards the Indian administrative system and ultimately took over the entire
Indian administration. What this project aims to study is not the administrative policies of the
British East India Company, but their administration of India, and how changes took place.

The English East India Company gained a strong stance in India in 1612 after Mughal
emperor Jahangir granted it the rights to establish a factory, or trading post, in the port of
Surat on the western coast of India. In 1640, after receiving similar grants from the king of

2
Ibid.

4
Vijayanagara farther south, a second factory was established in Madras (Machulipatnam) on
the south-eastern coast. Bombay Island, not far from Surat, a former Portuguese outpost
gifted to England as dowry in the marriage of Catherine of Braganza to Charles II, was leased
by the Company in 1668. Two decades later, the Company established a stronghold on the
eastern coast as well; far up that coast, in the Ganga river delta, a factory was set up in
Calcutta eventually. Since, during this time other companies—established by the Portuguese,
Dutch, French, and Danish were parallely expanding in the region, the English Company's
unremarkable beginnings on coastal India offered no hints to what would become a lengthy
presence on the Indian subcontinent.

The Company's victory under Andrea Bustamante and Robert Clive power in the 1757 Battle
of Plassey and another victory in the 1764 Battle of Buxar (in Bihar), consolidated the
Company's power, and forced emperor Shah Alam II to appoint it the diwan, or revenue
collector, of Bengal, Bihar, and Orissa as a grant from the then weakening Mughal emperor.
The Company thus became the de facto ruler of large areas of the lower Gangetic plain by
1773. It also proceeded by degrees to expand its dominions around Bombay and Madras. The
Anglo-Mysore Wars (1766–1799) and the Anglo-Maratha Wars (1772–1818) left it in control
of large areas of India south of the Sutlej River. With the defeat of the Marathas, no native
power posed to be a threat for the Company any longer.3 The end of the last Anglo-Maratha
War in 1818 marked the era of British paramountcy over India.4

The proliferation of the Company's power chiefly took two forms. The first of these was the
outright annexation of Indian states and subsequent direct governance of the regions lying
underneath, which collectively came to comprise British India. The annexed regions included
the North-Western Provinces (comprising Rohilkhand, Gorakhpur, and the Doab) (1801),
Delhi (1803), Assam (Ahom Kingdom 1828), and Sindh (1843). Punjab, North-West Frontier
Province, and Kashmir, were annexed after the Anglo-Sikh Wars in 1849; however, Kashmir
was immediately sold under the Treaty of Amritsar (1850) to the Dogra Dynasty of Jammu,
and thereby became a princely state. In 1854 Berar was annexed, and the state of Oudh two
years later.5 The second form of asserting power involved treaties in which Indian rulers
acknowledged the Company's hegemony in return for limited internal autonomy. Since the

3
Claude Markovits , A History of Modern India, 1410 – 1950, Anthem Press, 195, page 12
4
J H.S. Bhatia, Justice System and Mutinies in British India, Deep and Deep Publications, 1997, page.51
5
David Ludden, India and South Asia: A Short History, Oneworld Publications, 1987,page 54

5
Company operated under financial constraints, it had to set up political underpinnings for its
rule.6 The most important such support came from the subsidiary alliances with Indian
princes during the first 75 years of Company rule. In the early 19th century, the territories of
these princes accounted for two-third of India. When an Indian ruler, who was able to secure
his territory, wanted to enter such an alliance, the Company welcomed it as an economical
method of indirect rule, which did not involve the economic costs of direct administration or
the political costs of gaining the support of alien subjects.7 In return, the Company undertook
the "defence of these subordinate allies and treated them with traditional respect and marks of
honor." Subsidiary alliances created the princely states, of the Hindu maharajas and the
Muslim nawabs. Prominent among the princely states were: Cochin (1791), Jaipur (1794),
Travancore (1795), Hyderabad (1798), Mysore (1799), Cis-Sutlej Hill States (1815), Central
India Agency (1819), Cutch and Gujarat Gaikwad territories (1819), Rajputana (1818), and
Bahawalpur (1833).

6
Judith Margaret Brown, Modern India: The Origins of an Asian Democracy, Oxford University Press p. 67.
7
Ibid.

6
 THE COMPANY’S REGULATION AND ITS EVOLUTION.

Until Clive's victory at Plassey, the East India Company territories in India, which consisted
largely of the presidency towns of Calcutta, Madras, and Bombay, were governed by the
mostly autonomous—and sporadically unmanageable—town councils, all composed of
merchants. The councils barely had enough powers for the effective management of their
local affairs, and the ensuing lack of oversight of the overall Company operations in India led
to some grave abuses by Company officers or their allies8 Clive's victory, and the award of
the diwani of the rich region of Bengal, brought India into the public spotlight in Britain. The
Company's money management practices came to be questioned, especially as it began to
post net losses even as some Company servants, the "Nabobs," returned to Britain with large9
fortunes, which according to rumors then current were acquired unscrupulously. By 1772,
the Company needed British government loans to stay afloat, and there was fear in London
that the Company's corrupt practices could soon seep into British business and public life.
The rights and duties of the British government with regards the Company's new territories
came also to be examined. The British parliament then held several inquiries and in 1773,
during the premiership of Lord North, enacted the Regulating Act, which established
regulations, its long title stated, "… for the better Management of the Affairs of the East India
Company, as well in India as in Europe."10

Although Lord North himself wanted the Company's territories to be taken over by the
British state, he faced determined political opposition from many quarters, including some in
the City of London and the British parliament. The result was a compromise in which the
Regulating Act— although implying the ultimate sovereignty of the British Crown over these
new territories— asserted that the Company could act as a sovereign power on behalf of the
Crown. It could do this while concurrently being subject to oversight and regulation by the
British government and parliament. The Court of Directors of the Company were required
under the Act to submit all communications regarding civil, military, and revenue matters in

8
Sekhar Bandhyopadhyay, From Plassey to Partition: A History of Modern India, Orient
Longman Publishing p. 76
9
Douglas M. Peers, India Under Colonial Rule: 1700-1885, Pearson Education Canada p. 35
10
Imperial Gazetteer of India vol. IV 2007, p. 14

7
India for scrutiny by the British government.11 For the governance of the Indian territories,
the act asserted the supremacy of the

Presidency of Fort William (Bengal) over those of Fort St. George (Madras) and Bombay. It
also nominated a Governor-General (Warren Hastings) and four councilors for administering
the Bengal presidency (and for overseeing the Company's operations in India). "The
subordinate Presidencies were forbidden to wage war or make treaties without the previous
consent of the Governor-General of Bengal in Council, except in case of imminent necessity.
The Governors of these Presidencies were directed in general terms to obey the orders of the
Governor-General-in-Council, and to transmit to him intelligence of all important matters."
However, the imprecise wording of the Act, left it open to be variously interpreted;
consequently, the administration in India continued to be hobbled by disunity between the
provincial governors, between members of the Council, and between the Governor-General
himself and his Council. The Regulating Act also attempted to address the prevalent
corruption in India: Company servants were henceforth forbidden to engage in private trade
in India or to receive "presents" from Indian nationals.

William Pitt's India Act of 1784 established a Board of Control in England both to supervise
the East India Company's affairs and to prevent the Company's shareholders from interfering
in the governance of India.12 The Board of Control consisted of six members, which included
one

Secretary of State from the British cabinet, as well as the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Around this time, there was also extensive debate in the British parliament on the issue of
landed rights in Bengal, with a consensus developing in support of the view advocated by
Philip Francis, a member of the Bengal council and political adversary of Warren Hastings,
that all lands in Bengal should be considered the "estate and inheritance of native land-
holders and families ..." Mindful of the reports of abuse and corruption in Bengal by
Company servants, the India Act itself noted numerous complaints that "'divers Rajahs,
Zemindars, Polygars, Talookdars, and landholders

had been unjustly deprived of 'their lands, jurisdictions, rights, and privileges"13 At the same

11
Supra Note8.
12
Robert Travers, Ideology and Empire in the Eighteenth Century India, Cambridge University Press p. 124
13
Ibid.

8
time the Company's directors were now leaning towards Francis's view that the land-tax in
Bengal should be made fixed and permanent, setting the stage for the Permanent
Settlement.14 The India Act also created in each of the three presidencies a number of
administrative and military posts, which included: a Governor and three Councilors, one of
which was the Commander in Chief of the Presidency army. Although the supervisory
powers of the Governor-General-in-Council in Bengal (over Madras and Bombay) were
extended—as they were again in the Charter Act of 1793—the subordinate presidencies
continued to exercise some autonomy until both the extension of British possessions into
becoming contiguous and and the advent of faster communications in the next century. Still,
the new Governor-General appointed in 1786, Lord Cornwallis, not only had more power
than Hastings, but also had the support of a powerful British cabinet minister, Henry Dundas,
who, as Secretary of state for the Home Office, was in charge of the overall India policy.
From 1784 onwards, the British government had the final word on all major appointments in
India; a candidate's suitability for a senior position was often decided by the strength of his
political connexions rather than that of his administrative ability. Although this practice
resulted in many Governor-General nominees being chosen from Britain's conservative
landed gentry, there were some liberals as well, such as Lord William Bentinck and Lord
Dalhousie. British political opinion was also shaped by the attempted Impeachment of
Warren Hastings; the trial, whose proceedings began in 1788, ended, with Hastings'
acquittal, in 1795.15

Although the effort was chiefly coordinated by Edmund Burke, it also drew support from
within the British government. Burke, accused Hastings not only of corruption, but—
appealing to universal standards of justice—also of acting solely upon his own discretion and
without concern for law and of wilfully causing distress to others in India; in response,
Hastings' defenders asserted that his actions were in concert with Indian customs and
traditions. Although Burke's speeches at the trial drew applause and focused attention on
India, Hastings was eventually acquitted, due, in part, to the revival of nationalism in Britain
in the wake of the French Revolution; nonetheless, Burke's effort had the effect of creating a
sense of responsibility in British public life for the Company's dominion in India.

14
Durham, NC, A Rule of Property for Bengal: An Essay on the Idea of the Permanent Settlement, Duke
University Press p. 161.
15
Douglas M. Peers, India Under Colonial Rule: 1700-1885, Pearson Education Canada p. 36-38.

9
Soon rumblings appeared amongst merchants in London that the monopoly granted to the
East India Company in 1600 to facilitate it to better organise against Dutch and French
competition in a distant region, was no longer needed. In response, in the Charter Act of
1813, the British parliament renewed the Company's charter but terminated its monopoly
except with regard to tea and trade with China, opening India both to private investment
and missionaries.16 With increased British power in India supervision of Indian affairs by
the British Crown and parliament increased as well; by the 1820s British nationals could
transact business or engage in missionary work under the protection of the Crown in the three
presidencies. Finally, in Charter Act of 1833, the British parliament revoked the Company's
trade licence altogether, making the Company a part of British governance, although the
administration of British India remained the province of Company officers. The Charter Act
of 1833 also charged the Governor-General-in-Council (to whose title was now added "of
India") with the supervision of civil and military administration of the totality of India, as
well the exclusive power of legislation. Since the British territories in north India had now
extended up to Delhi, the Act also sanctioned the creation of a Presidency of Agra, later
constituted, in 1936, as the Lieutenant-Governorship of the North-Western Provinces
(current-day western Uttar Pradesh). With the annexation of Oudh in 1856, this territory was
extended, and eventually became the United Provinces of Agra and Oudh. In addition, in
1854, a Lieutenant-Governor was appointed for the region of Bengal, Bihar and Odisha,
leaving the Governor-General to concentrate on the governance of India.

16
David Ludden, India and South Asia: A Short History, One world Publications p. 137

10
 REVENUE SYSTEM AND ITS INFLUENCE ON
ADMINISTRATION.

In the remnant of the Mughal revenue system existing in pre-1765 Bengal, zamindars, or "land
holders," collected revenue on behalf of the Mughal emperor, whose representative, or diwan
supervised their activities.17 In this system, the assortment of rights associated with land were
not possessed by a "land owner," but rather shared by the several parties with stake in the land,
including the peasant cultivator, the zamindar, and the state.18 The zamindar served as an
intermediary who procured economic rent from the cultivator, and after withholding a
percentage for his own expenses, made available the rest, as revenue to the state. Under the
Mughal system, the land itself belonged to the state and not to the zamindar, who could transfer
only his right to collect rent. On being awarded the diwani or overlordship of Bengal following
the Battle of Buxar in 1764, the East India Company found itself short of trained administrators,
especially those familiar with local custom and law; tax collection was consequently farmed
out. This uncertain foray into land taxation by the Company, may have gravely worsened the
impact of a famine that struck Bengal in 1769-70, in which between seven and ten million
people—or between a quarter and third of the presidency's population—may have died.
However, the company provided little relief either through reduced taxation or by relief
efforts19 and the economic and cultural impact of the famine was felt decades later, even
becoming, a century later, the subject of Bankim Chandra Chatterjee's novel Anandamath.

In 1772, under Warren Hastings, the East India Company took over revenue collection directly
in the Bengal Presidency (then Bengal and Bihar), establishing a Board of Revenue with offices
in Calcutta and Patna, and moving the pre-existing Mughal revenue records from Murshidabad
to Calcutta. In 1773, after Oudh ceded the tributary state of Benaras, the revenue collection
system was extended to the territory with a Company Resident in charge. The following year—
with a view to preventing corruption—Company district collectors, who were then responsible
for revenue collection for an entire district, were replaced with provincial councils at Patna,
Murshidabad, and Calcutta, and with Indian collectors working within each district. The title,
"collector," reflected "the centrality of land revenue collection to government in India: it was

17
Metcalf, Barbara Daly; Metcalf, Thomas R, A concise history of modern India, Cambridge University Press,
2006, p. 20.
18
Ibid.
19
Douglas M. Peers, India Under Colonial Rule: 1700-1885, Pearson Education Canada, 2006, p. 47

11
the government's primary function and it moulded the institutions and patterns of
administration.20

The Company inherited a revenue collection system from the Mughals in which the heaviest
proportion of the tax burden fell on the cultivators, with one-third of the production reserved
for imperial entitlement; this pre-colonial system became the Company revenue policy'
baseline.21 Since the revenue was fixed in perpetuity, it was fixed at a high level, which in
Bengal amounted to £3 million at 1789-90 price.22 According to one estimate23 this was 20%
higher than the revenue demand before 1757. Over the next century, partly as a result of land
surveys, court rulings, and property sales, the change was given practical dimension. An
influence on the development of this revenue policy were the economic theories then current,
which regarded agriculture as the engine of economic development, and consequently stressed
the fixing of revenue demands in order to encourage growth. The expectation behind the
permanent settlement was that knowledge of a fixed government demand would encourage the
zamindars to increase both their average outcrop and the land under cultivation, since they
would be able to retain the profits from the increased output; in addition, it was envisaged that
land itself would become a marketable form of property that could be purchased, sold, or
mortgaged. A feature of this economic rationale was the additional expectation that the
zamindars, recognising their own best interest,24 would not make unreasonable demands on
the peasantry. However, these expectations were not realised in practice, and in many regions
of Bengal, the peasants bore the brunt of the increased demand, there being little protection for
their traditional rights in the new legislation. Forced labour of the peasants by the zamindars
became more prevalent as cash crops were cultivated to meet the Company revenue demands.
Although commercialised cultivation was not new to the region, it had now penetrated deeper
into village society and made it more vulnerable to market forces. The zamindars themselves
were often unable to meet the increased demands that the Company had placed on them;
consequently, many defaulted, and by one estimate, up to one-third of their lands were

20
Brown, Judith Margaret, Modern India: the origins of an Asian democracy, Oxford University Press 1994, p.55
21
Supra Note 19.
22
Sekhar Bandhyopadhyay, From Plassey to Partition: A History of Modern India, Orient
Longman Publishing, 2006, p. 82
23
Marshall, P. J, Bengal: The British Bridgehead, Eastern India, 1740–1828, Cambridge and London: Cambridge
University Press, 1997, p. 141-144
24
Bose, Sumit, Peasant Labour and Colonial Capital: Rural Bengal since 1770 (New Cambridge History of India),
Cambridge and London: Cambridge University Press, 1993,p.223.

12
auctioned during the first three decades following the permanent settlement.25 The new owners
were often Brahmin and Kayastha employees of the Company who had a good grasp of the
new system, and, in many cases, had prospered under it.26

Since the zamindars were never able to undertake costly improvements to the land envisaged
under the Permanent Settlement, some of which required the removal of the existing farmers,
they soon became rentiers who lived off the rent from their tenant farmers. In many areas,
especially northern Bengal, they had to increasingly share the revenue with intermediate tenure
holders, called jotedars, who supervised farming in the villages. Consequently, unlike the
contemporaneous Enclosure movement in Britain, agriculture in Bengal remained the province
of the subsistence farming of innumerable small paddy fields.

The zamindari system was one of two principal revenue settlements undertaken by the
Company in India. In southern India, Thomas Munro, who would later become Governor of
Madras, promoted the ryotwari system, in which the government settled land-revenue directly
with the peasant farmers, or ryots. This was, in part, a consequence of the turmoil of the Anglo-
Mysore Wars, which had prevented the emergence of a class of large landowners; in addition,
Munro and others felt that ryotwari was closer to traditional practice in the region and
ideologically more progressive, allowing the benefits of Company rule to reach the lowest
levels of rural society. At the heart of the ryotwari system was a particular theory of economic
rent—and based on David Ricardo's Law of Rent—promoted by utilitarian James Mill who
formulated the Indian revenue policy between 1819 and 1830.

Land revenue settlements constituted a major administrative activity of the various

governments in India under Company rule. In all areas other than the Bengal Presidency, land
settlement work involved a continually repetitive process of surveying and measuring plots,
assessing their quality, and recording landed rights, and constituted a large proportion of the
work of Indian Civil Service officers working for the government. After the Company lost its
trading rights, it became the single most important source of government revenue, roughly half
of overall revenue in the middle of the 19th century; even so, between the years 1814 and

25
Tomlinson, B. R, The Economy of Modern India, 1860–1970 (The New Cambridge History
of India, III.3), Cambridge and London: Cambridge University Press, 1993, p. 43.
26
Metcalf, Barbara Daly; Metcalf, Thomas R, A concise history of modern India, Cambridge
University Press, 2003, p. 79

13
1859, the government of India ran debts in 33 years. With expanded dominion, even during on-
deficit years, there was just enough money to pay the salaries of a threadbare administration, a
skeleton police force, and the army.

14
 FIRST WAR OF INDEPENDENCE, 1857.

Although it is claimed that India had got independence by non-violence, the history of India
does show much of uprisings and violence against the British subjects. For people had no other
option but to resort to violence to protest against the unchecked exploitation of the Indians by
the British in their own lands. They were helpless against the Britishers and had no other option
but to turn their means of protest violent so that it would make an impact on the minds of the
British. Let‘s look at some reasons behind why this happened and what its consequences were.

The East India Company, by the 1850s were engaged with military activities of India and had
to maintain their own army in order to ensure peace and order. The manpower, naturally, came
from the indigenous Indians. These soldiers were called the Sepoys‘, and hence comes the
name Sepoy Mutiny‘. This event was also called ‘THE FIRST WAR OF INDEPENDENCE’
and the Indian Rebellion of 1857‘. The reasons for the revolt were as follows:

1. The Doctrine of Lapse was introduced by the British, which stated that whenever the
princely states did not have a legal heir to their kingdom, the kingdom would be taken over by
the British

2. The Indians thought that the British were trying to convert India into a Christain
theocratic state where the Indians were, is and will be abused for time eternity and henceforth
there was an uneasiness in the minds of the Indians.

3. The introduction of a new type of cartridge in the Enfield rifle provoked religious
sentiments27 as the cartridge had to be loaded with pig and cow fat, which was degrading to
both the sentiments of Hindus and Muslims alike. This sparked the feeling of nationalism and
anti-oppressive movements all over India in a violet manner when the sepoys realized they
were being used against their own brothers. The uprising first took place through Mangal
Pandey, who in the first in Indian History, shot a British Sergeant-Major and Lieutenant dead
as he refused to load the rifle cartridges. He protested against it in a manner which led to the
huge movement in all parts of India. There were a lot of Britishers and Indians killed, and it
ultimately led to the winding up of the East India Company.28 .

27
http://www.britishempire.co.uk/forces/armycampaigns/indiancampaigns/mutiny/mutiny.htm
28
Spear, Percival A History of India, Volume 2, Penguin Publishers, 1990, p. 147-148.

15
 ADMINISTRATION UNDER THE CROWN.

The British India went from being a company-controlled territory to a direct dominion of the
British Empire, and that is when the administration took a different turn to free it from all the
evils present in the then Indian empire. But the question remains, was it satisfactory? Did it
correct the wrongs present in the society? To look into that, we shall the states and influence
of British Administration first.

In 1858, the power was transferred to the British Crown, and it was exercised through the
Governor General of India; the then ruling Queen was Queen Victoria.29 The Queen was
proclaimed as the Honourable Empress of India, and her influence can be well seen in the
Victoria Memorial present in Calcutta today – the magnificent structure just as a token of
appreciation for Queen Victoria. It is noteworthy of mention that India was then already
divided into two parts and did not remain undivided India – the Union of India30 and the Islamic
dominion of Pakistan.31

The result of the power shifting to the crown was mainly because of the Revolt of 1857 (as
mentioned in the previous page of the project), and the British then realized that India cannot
be governed as is from then. So there was a need to fundamentally reorganize things like states
and administration policies and goals of the British government.

Tolerance of religion, inclusion of Indians in Civil Services and various measures were taken
to meet the demands of the Indians and to restore peace and security all across India. The
British knew their days were numbered if they did not resort to strengthen their military, and
they did so. The British Crown had not intended to take control of the territory of India, but as
things had gone out of control, the Crown had to take power. The beginning of the Imperial
British Rule in India was marked by the sanction of the post of the Viceroy who served a
signature flagship of the British Rule in India headed by the Crown of England itself.

29
Kaul, Chandrika. "From Empire to Independence: The British Raj in India 1858–1947" available at
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/modern/independence1947_01.shtml.
30
It is interesting to note that Burma (present day Myanmar) was included within the Union of India, Lower
Myanmar in 1858, already was included and the upper half of the nation became eventually included in 1886.
In 1937, it became a separate entity, free from the Indian Union, but was a British Dominion till their
independence in 1948, after India got its independence
31
The Islamic Dominion of Pakistan included the present day Bangladesh in itself after the division of Bengal,
and they got separated as an independent nation only after the declaration of Independence in 1947.

16
The British India consisted of two types of territories – the British ruled India, and the princely
states ruled by the indigenous rulers as a subordinate of the British. The exact definitions
adopted by the British parliament were:

“(4.) The expression "British India" shall mean all territories and places within Her Majesty's
dominions which are for the time being governed by Her Majesty through the Governor-
General of India or through any governor or other officer subordinate to the Governor-General
of India.

(5.) The expression "India" shall mean British India together with any territories of any native
prince or chief under the suzerainty of Her Majesty exercised through the Governor- General
of India, or through any governor or other officer subordinate to the Governor- General of
India.32

So, what the ordinary plain meaning of the British India says that is the areas of the British
which was previously under the rule of the East India Company, and the princely states referred
to the states with the indigenous rulers as the titular head but the de facto ruler as the British
Governor General or The Crown. There were a lot of princely states when the power was
transferred to the Crown, being more than 600 in totality. The 175 princely states got placed
under the Crown, and power was exercised by the Viceroy over these States. These states were
the most powerful ones and required direct control of the Crown to curb rebellion and battle
between the states and the British Empire. These empires required direct influence of the
British so that the empires policies could not go against the British and their interests.33

The other princely states, amounting to more than 500 princely states cumulatively was under
the provincial government of the British which was headed by the Governor General, or
Lieutenant Governor or Chief Commissioner depending on specific provinces and their
necessities.

32
Interpretation Act 1889 (52 & 53 Vict. c. 63), s. 18
33
Imperial Gazetteer of India vol. IV 1907, p. 60

17
 GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ACT, 1858.

The Government of India Act 1858 made changes in the governance of India at three levels:

1. In the imperial government in London,

2. In the central government in Calcutta, and

3. In the provincial governments in the presidencies (and later in the provinces)34

In London, it provided for a cabinet level Secretary of State for India and a fifteen-member
Council of India, whose members were required, as one prerequisite of membership, to have
spent at least ten years in India and to have done so no more than ten years before.35 Although
the Secretary of State formulated the policy instructions to be communicated to India, he was
required in most instances to consult the Council, but especially so in matters relating to
spending of Indian revenues. The Act envisaged a system of "double government" in which the
Council ideally served both as a check on excesses in imperial policy making and as a body of
up-to-date expertise on India. However, the Secretary of State also had special emergency
powers that allowed him to make unilateral decisions, and, in reality, the Council's expertise
was sometimes outdated.36 From 1858 until 1947, twenty seven individuals served as Secretary
of State for India and directed the India Office; these included: Sir Charles Wood (1859–1866),
Marquess of Salisbury (1874–1878; later Prime Minister of Britain), John Morley (1905–1910;
initiator of the Minto-Morley Reforms), E. S. Montagu (1917–1922; an architect of the
Montagu-Chelmsford reforms), and Frederick Pethick-Lawrence (1945–1947; head of the
1946 Cabinet Mission to India). The size of the advisory Council was reduced over the next
half-century, but its powers remained unchanged. In 1907, for the first time, two Indians were
appointed to the Council.37

They were K.G. Gupta and Syed Hussain Bilgrami. In Calcutta, the Governor-General
remained head of the Government of India and now was more commonly called the Viceroy
on account of his secondary role as the Crown's representative to the nominally sovereign
princely states; he was, however, now responsible to the Secretary of State in London and

34
Robin J. Moore, "Imperial India, 1858–1914, Oriental Publications, New Delhi, 2005" pp 422-446
35
Ibid.
36
Judith Margaret Brown, Modern India: The Origins of an Asian Democracy, Oxford University
Press, New Delhi, 1998,p. 96
37
Moore, "Imperial India, 1858–1914", p. 426

18
through him to Parliament. A system of "double government" had already been in place during
the Company's rule in India from the time of Pitt's India Act of 1784. The Governor-General
in the capital, Calcutta, and the Governor in a subordinate presidency (Madras or Bombay) was
each required to consult his advisory council; executive orders in Calcutta, for example, were
issued in the name of "Governor-General-in- Council" (i.e. the Governor-General with the
advice of the Council). The Company's system of "double government" had its critics, since,
from the time of the system's inception, there had been intermittent feuding between the
Governor-General and his Council; still, the Act of 1858 made no major changes in
governance. However, in the years immediately thereafter, which were also the years of post-
rebellion reconstruction, Viceroy Lord Canning found the collective decision making of the
Council to be too time-consuming for the pressing tasks ahead, so he requested the "portfolio
system" of an Executive Council in which the business of each government department (the
"portfolio") was assigned to and became the responsibility of a single council member. Routine
departmental decisions were made exclusively by the member, but important decisions
required the consent of the Governor-General and, in the absence of such consent, required
discussion by the entire Executive Council. This innovation in Indian governance was
promulgated in the Indian Councils Act 1861.

If the Government of India needed to enact new laws, the Councils Act allowed for a
Legislative Council an expansion of the Executive Council by up to twelve additional
members, each appointed to a two-year term with half the members consisting of British
officials of the government (termed official) and allowed to vote, and the other half, comprising
Indians and domiciled Britons in India (termed non-official) and serving only in an advisory
capacity.38 All laws enacted by Legislative Councils in India, whether by the Imperial
Legislative Council in Calcutta or by the provincial ones in Madras and Bombay, required the
final assent of the Secretary of State in London; this prompted Sir Charles Wood, the second
Secretary of State, to describe the Government of India as "a despotism controlled from home".
Moreover, although the appointment of Indians to the Legislative Council was a response to
calls after the 1857 rebellion, most notably by Sir Sayyid Ahmad Khan, for more consultation
with Indians, the Indians so appointed were from the landed aristocracy, often chosen for their

38
Douglas M. Peers, India Under Colonial Rule: 1700-1885, Pearson Education, Canada, 1993 p. 76

19
loyalty, and far from representative.39 Even so, the " tiny advances in the practice of
representative government were intended to provide safety valves for the expression of
public opinion, which had been so badly misjudged before the rebellion.40 Indian affairs now
also came to be more closely examined in the British Parliament and more widely discussed in
the British press.

39
Bayly, C. A., Indian Society and the Making of the British Empire (The New Cambridge History of India),
Cambridge and London: Cambridge University Press.1990, P 195

40
Douglas M. Peers, India Under Colonial Rule: 1700-1885, Pearson Education Canada,1990, p. 72

20
 MONTAGUE-CHELSFORD REFORMS(GOVERNMENT OF
INDIA ACT, 1919).

The Government of India Act 1919 (9 & 10 Geo. 5 c. 101) was an Act of the Parliament of the
United Kingdom. It was passed to expand participation of Indians in the government of India.
The Act embodied the reforms recommended in the report of the Secretary of State for India,
Edwin Montague, and the Viceroy, Lord Chelmsford. The Act covered ten years, from 1919 to
1929. The Act received royal assent on December 23 1919. On the same day the King-Emperor
issued a proclamation which reviewed the course of parliamentary legislation for India and the
intent of the act:

"The Acts of 1773 and 1784 were designed to establish a regular system of administration and
justice under the Honourable East India Company. The Act of 1833 opened the door for Indians
to public office and employment. The Act of 1858 transferred the administration from the
Company to the Crown and laid the foundations of public life which exist in India to-day. The
Act of 1861 sowed the seed of representative institutions, and the seed was quickened into life
by the Act of 1909. The Act which has now become law entrusts the elected representative of
the people with a definite share in the Government and points the way to full responsible
Government hereafter".

The Act provided a dual form of government41 (a "dyarchy") for the major provinces. In each
such province, control of some areas of government, the "transferred list", were given to a
Government of ministers answerable to the Provincial Council. The 'transferred list' included
Agriculture, supervision of local government, Health and Education. The Provincial Councils
were enlarged. At the same time, all other areas of government (the 'reserved list') remained
under the control of the Viceroy. The 'reserved list' included Defence (the military), Foreign
Affairs, and Communications.

The Imperial Legislative Council was enlarged and reformed. It became a bicameral legislature
for all India. The lower house was the Legislative Assembly of 144 members, of which 104
were elected and 40 were nominated and tenure of three years. The upper house was the
Council of States consisting of 34 elected and 26 nominated members and tenure of five years.

41
Lionel Curtis, Papers Relating to the Application of the Principle of Dyarchy to the Government of India: To
which are appended the Report of the Joint Select Committee and the Government of India Act, 1919,
Clarendon Press.

21
 GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ACT, 1935.

Indians had increasingly been demanding a greater role in the government of their country
since the late 19th century. The Indian contribution to the British war effort during the First
World War meant that even the more conservative elements in the British political
establishment felt the necessity of constitutional change, resulting in the Government of India
Act 1919. That Act introduced a novel system of government known as provincial "dyarchy",
i.e., certain areas of government (such as education) were placed in the hands of ministers
responsible to the provincial even for those areas over which they had gained nominal control,
the "purse strings" were still in the hands of British officialdom.

The intention had been that a review of India's constitutional arrangements and those princely
states that were willing to accede to it. However, division between Congress and Muslim
representatives proved to be a major factor in preventing agreement as to much of the important
detail of how federation would work in practice. Against this practice, the new Conservative-
dominated National Government in London decided to go ahead with drafting its own
proposals (the white paper). A joint parliamentary select committee, chaired by Lord
Linlithgow, reviewed the white paper proposals at great length. On the basis of this white paper,
the Government of India Bill was framed. At the committee stage and later, to appease the
diehards, the "safeguards" were strengthened, and indirect elections were reinstated for the
Central Legislative Assembly (the central legislature's lower house). The bill duly passed into
law in August 1935.

As a result of this process, although the Government of India Act 1935 was intended to go
some way towards meeting Indian demands, both the detail of the bill and the lack of Indian
involvement in drafting its contents meant that the Act met with a lukewarm response at best
in India, while still proving too radical for a significant element in Britain.

The significant features of the Act42 included formation of All India Federation based on a
Union of the British India Provinces and the Princely States, a bicameral federal legislature
with disproportionate weightage to the States, Dyarchy at the Centre with important
departments like defence, foreign affairs, ecclesiastical affairs etc. under reserved list. Further
Governor-General retained special control (Special Responsibility) over the other subjects

42
http://www.houseofdavid.ca/Ind_uni.htm#Shah1937.

22
transferred to the elected members and was to act under the control and directions of the
Secretary of State. The Act provided for withdrawal of Dyarchy from the Provinces and
Provincial Autonomy was introduced, thus providing for responsible government in all of the
11 provinces including Sindh and Orissa (newly created by this Act itself).43

The Government of India Act (1935), provided for division of the legislative powers between
the provincial and central legislature. Three fold divisions of legislative powers were made.
The Federal list under exclusive power of the Federal Legislature included matters, such as,
external affair, currency and coinage, defence, census. The Provincial list under exclusive
jurisdiction of Provincial legislature included, police, provincial public service, education etc.
The Concurrent list consisted of matters over which both the Federal and Provincial legislature
had competence to legislate. Moreover, the executive authority of a Province was also
exercised by a Governor on behalf of the Crown and not as a subordinate, to the Governor-
General. The Governors were also given special powers as they could veto legislative action
and legislate on their own in matters like law and order, interests of minorities the people of
backward areas, the protection of the British commerce and those of the rulers of the Princely
States.

The federal principle was introduced but the Centre was vested with more power. However,
the Provinces enjoyed many powers that were not a subordinate authority. The federal
character, however, was seriously distorted by the provisions of safeguards and special
responsibility which gave extraordinary powers to the Central and Provincial executive heads.
Moreover, the goal of Dominion Status still remained a distant dream. The restricted adult
franchise based on property qualification (14% of population in British India), the system of
separate electorates the provisions of safeguards were not in conformity with the democratic
rights of the people. The Congress rejected the Act because the Indian people were not
consulted in its enactment and thus not being representative of their will.

The liberals criticized the Act but were willing to work the reforms as a step towards
responsible government. The Muslim League also criticized the Act but was ready to give it a
trial.

43
The making of Pakistan, available at http://www.storyofpakistan.com/articletext.asp?artid=A041

23
 INDIAN INDEPENDENCE ACT, 1947.

Till 1947, the Government of India functioned under the provisions of the Government of
India Act 1919 as the provisions of 1935 Act relating to federation and Dyarchy did not come
into operation. Thus, the Executive Council provided by the 1919 Act continued to advise the
Governor-General till 1947. The 3rd June plan was given effect by the Indian Independence
Act 1947. This Bill was introduced in the British Parliament on July 4, 1947, and on 18th
July, got the royal assent. India had won her freedom but the price was partition. The
dominion of Pakistan was inaugurated in Karachi on 14th August, 1947. India became free
on 15th August, 1947. Lord Mountbatten was sworn in as the Governor-General. He swore in
Jawahar Lal Nehru as the first Prime minister of free India. Mohd. Ali Jinnah became the
Governor General of Pakistan. The June 3rd plan said nothing about princely states. The
British Prime Minister Clement Atlee had announced in his speech of 20th February 1947
that Britain would not hand over power and obligations to any successor government. In
theory, this meant that the states would become sovereign entities when the British left India.

The Indian Independence Act 194744 said that British rule over the Indian states was to lapse
on 15th August, 1947, they were allowed to join either India or Pakistan. The provisions of
the Indian Independence Act 1947 were as follows:

(a) It declared India as an Independent and Sovereign state and brought to an end the
responsibility of the British Parliament for administration of India.

(b) It established responsible government at both the centre and the provinces. It
designated the Governor-General of India and the Provincial Governors as constitutional
heads (nominal heads). In other words, it made them to act on the advice of the respective
council of ministers.

(c) It assigned dual functions (i.e. constituent and legislative) to the Constituent
Assembly formed in 1946. It declared this dominion legislature as a sovereign body.

The Indian Independence Bill was passed by the British Parliament on 15th July, 1947 and it
received the royal assent of 18th July. British Control over India ended on 15th August, 1947.

44
Dr. Durga Das Basu, Introduction to the Constitution of India, Oxford Publications, New Delhi, 1990.p.258

24
The Indian Constitution was adopted on 26th November, 1949 and it came into effect on 26th
January, 1950 thus ending the 250 years of British Rule in India.

25
 CONCLUSION

The British Rule in India was one of the consequences of the colonization boom that had spread
across Europe and it helped England gain supremacy over the other European nations. We can
also see in this project how the relations between several European nations impacted what the
British did in India, and how things took turns- why the Portuguese, Dutch or French could not
gain supremacy.

The timeline states an inevitable fact – even the British had not expected to rule India at first.
The East India Company was formed for merely trading activities over the East Indies, and not
to rule over territory. That is why we can see no Indian administration through the Charters of
the 17th century, like the Charter of 1600. The administrative aspect of the British came only
after the advent of the 18th century, where we can see the government being run by the British.
This was mainly possible because of the complacent nature of the Indians, the Mughals being
weak, and the other princely states being in dispute with each other.

Not only the Mughals, the English could penetrate the South in totality too, because the
Southern rulers had become weak too, whereby the Nizam of Hyderabad and the Kings of
Vijayanagara had not excelled in their foresight of being thrown away by the Englishmen.

Overall, British administration did both good and bad.

The good side is that the British had injected the western system of educational mechanism
into India, where India had the tool to compete with the world, with their history of being the
best intellectuals all over the world. Science and Technology progressed through a different
form, and many social evils all throughout India got erased – like Sati, Untouchability etc.

The British administration and their different phases has taught India a lot and India still
follows the system‘s backbone till date, whereby they already had readymade frameworks of
law and administration when the world was writing them all over again.

26
 BIBLIOGRAPHY.

Books:

1. A History of Modern India, 1410 – 1950, Claude Markovits, Anthem Press

2. Justice System and Mutinies in British India, H.S. Bhatia, Deep and Deep Publications

3. India and South Asia: A Short History, David Ludden, Oneworld Publications

4. Modern India: The Origins of an Asian Democracy, Judith Margaret Brown, Oxford University
Press

5. From Plassey to Partition: A History of Modern India, Sekhar Bandhyopadhyay, Orient

Longman Publishing

6. India Under Colonial Rule: 1700-1885, Douglas M. Peers, Pearson Education Canada

7. Ideology and Empire in the Eighteenth Century India, Robert Travers, Cambridge University
Press

8. A Rule of Property for Bengal: An Essay on the Idea of the Permanent Settlement, Durham,
NC: Duke University Press

9. Metcalf, Barbara Daly; Metcalf, Thomas R. (2006), A concise history of modern India,
Cambridge University Press

10. Marshall, P. J. (1987), Bengal: The British Bridgehead, Eastern India, 1740–1828, Cambridge
and London: Cambridge University Press

11. Bose, Sumit (1993), Peasant Labour and Colonial Capital: Rural Bengal since 1770 (New
Cambridge History of India), Cambridge and London: Cambridge University Press

12. Tomlinson, B. R. (1993), The Economy of Modern India, 1860–1970 (The New Cambridge
History of India, III.3), Cambridge and London: Cambridge University Press

13. Spear, Percival (1990), A History of India, Volume 2, Penguin Publishers

14. Robin J. Moore, "Imperial India, 1858–1914‖

15. Bayly, C. A. (1990), Indian Society and the Making of the British Empire (The New Cambridge
History of India), Cambridge and London: Cambridge University Press

16. Introduction to the Constitution of India- Dr. Durga Das Basu

Statutes:

1. Imperial Gazette of India

2. Government of India Act, 1858

3. Government of India Act, 1919

27
4. Government of India Act, 1935

5. Interpretation Act, 1889

Papers:

1. Lionel Curtis, Papers Relating to the Application of the Principle of Dyarchy to the
Government of India: To which are Appended the Report of the Joint Select Committee and the
Government of India Act, 1919, Clarendon Press

2. Meetika Srivastava, Evolution of the System of Public Administration in India from the Period
1858- 1950: A Detailed Study Highlighting the Major Landmarks in Administrative History Made
During this Period, available at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1482528

Online Articles:

1. http://www.britishempire.co.uk/forces/armycampaigns/indiancampaigns/mutiny/muti
ny.htm

2. The making of Pakistan, available at

http://www.storyofpakistan.com/articletext.asp?artid=A041

3. http://www.houseofdavid.ca/Ind_uni.htm#Shah1937

4. Kaul, Chandrika. "From Empire to Independence: The British Raj in India 1858–1947"
available at http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/modern/independence1947_01.shtml.

28