B.A.

(Programme) Semester-IV History

DISCIPLINE SPECIFIC CORE COURSE (DSC)

History of India, c. 1700-1950
Study Material : Unit I-VIII

SCHOOL OF OPEN LEARNING

University of Delhi

Department of History
 Graduate Course
DISCIPLINE SPECIFIC CORE COURSE (DSC)
History of India, c. 1700-1950

Contents
Unit I : State of Society in Eighteenth Century Dr. Y.B. Mathur
Unit-II : Rise of Autonomous States with Special Reference to the
Marathas, Mysore, the Punjab, Avadh, Bengal and Hyderabad
British Expansion in India up to 1818 and from 1818 to 1956
British Relations with the Indian States (1756-1857)
Unit-III : Economic Impact of British Rule in India before and after 1857
Administrative Reorganisation, 1765-1857 (Part I : 1765-1793)
Administrative Reorganisation, 1765-1857 (Part II : 1793-1857)
De-Industrialisation
Unit-IV : The Great Rebellion: Its Causes and Nature
The Failure and Impact of the Great Rebellion
Unit-V : Socio-Religious Reforms and Growth of Education and Press
Peasant Movements in Modern India
Unit-VI : (a) Indian National Congress
(b) A Critique of Colonialism (Moderates, Extremists
and Militant Nationalists)
(c) The Nationalist Movement and the Role of
Mahatma Gandhi
Unit-VII : (a) The 1920s: Community and Communalism: Devyani Gupta
The Organization of Religious
Difference and Antagonism
Unit-VIII : Independent India: Making of the Constitution:
The Evolution of the Constitution and its Main Provisions;
Basic Features of the Constitution

SCHOOL OF OPEN LEARNING

UNIVERSITY OF DELHI
5, Cavalry Lane, Delhi-110007
 Unit-I
State of Society in Eighteenth Century
Dr. Y.B. Mathur

The fall of the Mughal Empire inaugurated an area of unlimited political chaos. There
were prolonged struggles and conflicts among numerous small powers who were striving
to make there was no administration, no law and no security. Society had to pass through
a period of instability and insecurity. The strong prevailed over the weak; and anarchy
became the order of the day. Accounts left by eighteenth century foreign travellers and
Indian writers present the picture of such a sad state of affairs.
Indian society remained indifferent to the political developments. The innumerable
village communities led their self contained and more or less secluded life as before, and
continued to remain unconcerned with the political developments as far as possible. This
led to unfortunate results, for the village communities became more and more isolated
and their social life became more and more stagnant and static. Irrational social practices
became conspicuous features of the eighteenth century India. We know, in the fifteenth
and sixteenth centuries, India had produced a number of seers and saints, preachers and
religious reformers, who played a vital role in rationalising medieval religions. But the
eighteenth century was a dark period in her religious history. There was no great
religious, spiritual or moral preacher to preach enlightenment to the ignorant. The echo of
the social philosophy which the great Bhakti reformers like Kabir, Nanak and Chaitanya
had preached, was not heard again for two centuries.
In the eighteenth century, idolatory and fetishism were extended to the extremes.
Believers in monotheism and pantheism were there but the mass of the people were
believers in sacrificial rites, witchcraft and sorcery, various pujas, festivities and
ceremonies. In certain areas like Bengal, tantric rites and practices were widely prevalent.
There was no escape from superstition and surprisingly enough there was hardly any
protest even against inhuman practices. Islam, too, had become an intolerant religion. In
the hey-day of Islamic glory the Sufi preachers preached tolerance. But from the latter
part of the seventeenth century the Muslim rulers assumed religious bigotry as a part of
their state policy. The truth is that the fall of the Mughal Empire was due to the struggle
of the Rajputs, Marathas, Sikhs and others against the oppressive laws which the
orthodox Aurangzeb unwisely introduced. The bitterness between Hindus and Muslims
became a legacy of the seventeenth century which continued into the eighteenth. The
earlier understanding between the two communities had almost vanished. The days were
gone when Muslim liberals like Akbar and Dara Shikoh had tried to appreciate the
spiritual doctrines of the Hindu scriptures. Instead, religious animosity pervaded the mind
of the Muslim ruling class. Instead of understanding between the two major communities
in their socio-orthodox shell, as islam in India detached itself from other spiritual streams.

1
With religious attaching more importance to external form than to inner reality, religious
superstitions began to pervade all aspects of social life. The more numerous the
superstitious practices, the greater became the dominance of the priestly class. The bulk
of that class seldom understood the scriptures and cared little for spiritual values. But
they practised the ceremonies in all earnestness and society obeyed them faithfully. Amid
ignorance and blind belief, dangerous social customs appeared as religiously sound.
Priests could explain any social evil as holy with the apparent sanction of the scriptures
behind it. Infanticide, child-marriage, polygamy, the burning of widows, and other social
evils were all interpreted as scripturally and religiously valid. Similarly, such social
systems as caste, untouchability, seclusion of women and slavery were all considered as
sanctified by the shastras and therefore absolutely valid. Thus the eighteenth century was
an age of intolerant institutions and irrational customs.

Caste
It is difficult to determine the actual number of castes and sub-castes which existed in the
society. There are different estimates, some of which even suggest the existence of two to
three thousand castes and sub-castes. It remains therefore one of the most controversial
social institutions of human history. Its greatest demerit was that it divided society into
water-tight compartments. Without social unity, the country had to suffer many evil
consequences including foreign domination. Much before the 18th century the French
traveller, Tavernier, described the great disadvantage of caste in the following words:
“The idolators of India are so numerious that for one Mahomedan there are five or six
Gentiles. It is astonishing to see how this enormous multitude of men has allowed itself to
be subjected by so small number of persons, and has bent readily under the yoke of the
Mahomedan princes. But the astonishment cases when one considers that these idolators
have no union among themselves and that superstition has introduced so strange a
diversity of opinions and customs that they never agree with one another.”
The advantage of the caste-system has been ascribed to its economic implications. An
occupational function was allotted to each caste or sub-case, however small it might have
been. There was means of livelihood for every one in the society and inside every group
there was a place for every individual. It is this aspect of the caste system which has
prompted even some modern thinkers to justify the system in that it preserved Hindu arts
and craftsmanship besides religion and morals. In the words of Monier-Williams: “Caste
has been useful in prompting self-sacrifice, in securing sub-ordination of the individual to
an organised body, in restraining vice and in preventing pauperism”.
Its merits or demerits notwithstanding, the caste system stood on certain social
formalities. It was a ladder from the highest to the lowest. While the highest caste
contained God’s men and claimed the utmost reverence, the members of the lowest
groups were so inferior as to remain secluded, while of course doing their duty by
society. Between the highest and the lowest there existed numerious grades depending on

2
the nature of caste and profession. In such a system the individual’s life and occupation
were determined at his birth irrespective of his inborn qualities. Talent lay buried beneath
the caste. Inter-caste marriage was unthinkable. Easting with other castes was equally
forbidden. Even to take water from the hands of many castes was a sin. Restrictions were
to strictly enforced that any one who broke the rules faced social excommunication. Caste
system, sanctified by time and religion, was no problem to the society in the 18th century.
But in the eyes of the Europeans of that time caste appeared degrading.

Untouchability
Untochability was itself the supreme example of social inequality. But more than that
there was the problem of injustice associated with it. The untouchales were denied certain
basic privileges of living. They could not use tanks, wells, inns or schools meant for
upper class people, not to speak of places of worship or public institutions. In the 18th
century, society retained untouchability in its extreme form.

Slavery
Slavery prevailed in the country. Broadly speaking, slaves could be divided into two
parts, domestic slaves and serfs tied to the land. The second category of the slaves were
transferred with the sale of the land to the buyer. In some cases, economic distress;
natural calamities, extreme poverty and famines compelled parents to sell their children.
The Rajputs, the Kshtriya and Kayasthas usually kept slave women for domestic work.
Slaves in India were treated better then the slaves in Europe and America. They were
usually treated as hereditary servants of the family and were allowed to marry among
themselves.
The practice of slavery increased with the coming of the Europeans in India, particularly
the Portuguese, the Dutch and the English. The European Companies purchased slaves in
the open market. There were reports of Europeans at Surat, Madras and Calcutta
purchasing Abyssinian slaves and employing them for domestic work.

Seclusion of Women
The position of women in the 18th ecntury was not satisfactory. It was their total seclusion
which brought about their physical and mental degeneration. In many parts of India, the
Purdah had long become an established custom both among Hindus and Muslims. The
general insecurity and lawlessness whcih prevailed at that time made the seclusion more
tight. The freedom and status which the Indian women enjoyed in ancient times were
beyond the range of imagination. For centuries under Mubammedan rule there had
developed an apathy towards the lot of women. There was hardly any opportunity for
girls to attend educational institutions. As a general rule, Indian women remained
unlettered and ignorant.

3
It was the complete dependence of women on men which reduced their position to one of
object surrender. “Their fathers protect them in childhood; their husbands protect them in
youth; their sons protect them in old age.” The female was thus dependent on her father,
husband & son in childhood, youth and old age respectively. The Hindu women were
denied any right in paternal property which made them economically completely
dependent on men.

Other Social Customs

Much before the 18th century certain abominable socio-religious customs had entered
Hindu society which affected Hindu women in the most horrible manner. The most
iniquitous of these customs were female-infanticide, child-marriage, polygamy, forced
celibacy of widows, and last but not the least, the burning of widows on the funeral pyre
of their husbands. These customs survived through the eighteenth century.
In the 18th century India, quite a number of superstitious rites, of doubtful antiquity or
origin, were practised in different parts of the country. Human sacrifice can be described
as first in the series of superstitious practices. It was the upper class Hindus who on very
rare occasions resorted to it. The goddess Kali required human blood or heads, and for the
gratification of the Devi human victim was slaughtered. Self-immolation was yet another
form of human sacrifice. In some cases in order to escape disease one could drown
oneself in a river. In other cases, life could be taken by way of mortification and penance.
Among other forms of human sacrifice, there was the sacrifice of one’s own child.
Parents, under peculiar conditions, used to take vow to offer their first born child to the
river Ganges. Self-torture was yet another superstitious rite. Quite a number of devotees
used to perform the painful practice of piercing their tongues and arms with pointed rods.
Such a barbarous rite was practised in the belief that good results followed such self-
torture. Irrational as all such practices were, fortunately for the society they could neither
be universally adopted nor widely acclaimed. They were bad, nevertheless in an era of
mental stagnation, the prevailing abuses continued without affecting the conscience of
thinking men.

Economic Condition
India of the eighteenth century was a land of contrasts. Extreme poverty existed side by
side with extreme riches and luxury. While the nobles were rich and powerful and
steeped in luxury and comfort, the peasants were oppressed and impoverished. The
increasing revenue demands of the state, oppression of the officials, greed and rapacity of
the nobles, revenue farmers and Zamindars, marches and counter-marches of the rival
armies and the destruction brought about by foreign invaders, made the life of the people
wretched. Many prosperous cities which were the centres of flourishing industry, were
sacked and devastated. Delhi and Mathura were plundered by Ahmed Shah Abdali. Agra
was plundered by the Jats. Surat and other cities of Gujarat and the Deccan were

4
plundered by the Maratha chiefs. Sarhind was plundered by the Sikhs. On account of the
disintegration of the Mughal Empire in the eighteenth century, there was practically no
law and order and hence there could be no manufactures or trade in a prosperous
condition.
Particular groups of artisans undertook distinct process of production and the specialists
worked in coordination to produce finished goods. Specialisation promoted skill and
Indian workmenship reached a perfection unrivalled in those times in the world. In
industrial organisation and techniques, India was more advanced than the Western
countries. The products of Indian industry fulfilled not only the needs of Asian and
African countries but there was also a great demand for them in the markets of Europe.
They reached the Western countries by sea and land routes.
The Indian merchants were well established all along the ports of the Persian Gulf and the
Red Sea. They also met in considerable numbers in Qandhar, Kabul, Balkh, Bukhara,
Kashghar etc.
The upper classes in India demanded luxury articles. Their demand was considerable. The
producers of high quality luxury goods worked in their homes or worked in the state
Karkhanas (workshopes) in the towns. Some village artisans who had acquired special
skill in their respective crafts also contributed to the supply of those articles. As most of
the craftsmen were poor, they worked for merchants who advanced them money through
brokers or dealt with them through agents. Money was paid to craftsmen for implements
and raw materials. Wages were given in advance in return for finished goods which were
usually collected and placed in the market by middlemen. Sometimes, the nobles had
direct dealings with artisans.
Merchant, ships in the port-towns and boats plying on the country’s rivers were all
manufactured in the country. There was a flourishing oat-building industry at Dacca,
Allahabad, Lahore, Thatta, Massaulipatam, Pulicat, Calicut, Surat, Bassein and Goa. In
the art of ship-building, India was ahead of European nations. The important ship-
building centres were Goa, Bassein, Surat, Massulipatam, Satgaon, Dacca and
Chittagong.
The important centres of textile industry were Dacca and Murshidabad in Bengal, Patna
in Bihar, Surat, Ahmedabad and Broach in Gujarat, Chanderi in Madhya Pradesh,
Burhanpur in Punjab, Masaulipatam, Aurangabad and Vishakhapatnam in Andhra
Pradesh, Bangalore in Mysore (Karnataka) and Coimbatore and Madurai in Madras.
Kashmir was a centre of woolen manufactures.
Indian industries not only met the home demand but also exported their goods. Indian
industries catered to the needs of foreign markets also. India continued to be a sink of
precious metals.

5
For centuries, India was known for the excellence of her cotten products. There was a
great demand for Indian manufactures in Rome during the time of ancient India. The
principal exports of India consisted chiefly of silk and cotton stuffs. Their great
popularity was based upon the excellence of craftsmanship. Among other things of
export, indigo was of great importance. Limited quantities of iron and steel were exported
from Masaulipatam. Cotton yarn was exported from the Coromandel coast. Gujarat
exported precious stones, marble, drugs, opium, Hing etc.
The trade and industry of India was organised and financed by Indian merchants. They
were not confined to port towns but were spread in all cities all along the trade routes of
the country. Multan in the Punjab and the three Sind towns of Bukkur, Sukkur and Rohri
were important centres of inland trade. They had a flourishing community of merchants
comprising mostly of Khattris, Lohana and Bhatias. Delhi, Lahore and Agra were great
centres of commercial activity in Northern India. Malda, Rangpur and Kasimbazar were
important trade centres. Ahmedabad, Poona and Nagpur rose in importance after 1750.
Hyderabad, Bangalore and Tanjore were flourishing centres of trade and commerce.
In addition to merchants, there was a class of financiers, both big and small. The Jagat
Seths of Bengal, the Nathjis of Gujarat and the Chettis of the South were famous
financiers. The Jagat Seths had a capital of ten crores of rupees in the first half of the
eighteenth century. The Nathjis in Surat also had vast resources.
The Indian village was a self-sufficient economic unit. The agricultural surplus went to
the king in the form of land revenue. After meeting the government demand, the peasants
had little surplus left with them for purchasing the goods of the urban industry.
India was self-contained and generally self-sufficient in agricultural and industrial goods
required for the consumption of her population. The imported materials included raw silk,
ivory, coral, tortoise-shell and amber in addition to metals.
The most important items of agricultural produce was foodgrains. In the Deccan, wheat
and gram, rice and millet were the crops grown. Jawar and Bajra were the main support
of the people of the Deccan and were extensively grown. In the North also, millets
supplies the major parts of the articles of food of people and formed the principal crops.
Wheat was not an important crop in Uttar Pradesh at that time. Next to foodgrans, cotton
and sugar were the most widely grown crops. Tobacco, opium and indigo were the other
commercial crops.
European travellers and other contemporary writers have mentioned the poverty of the
Indians. Their view was based on the scantiness of clothing, miserable dwellings, poor
utensils and lack of furniture and not the lack of adequate quantities of nourishing diet.
The view of Dr. Tara Chand is that as far as the poor classes of the people were
concerned, they had very few wants and those were met adequately from what the
country produced. There was no general starvation or inadequate nourishment except in

6
times of famine. They normal years to accumulate and build up economic reserves for
meeting calamities like famine. Their clothing was scant and their dwellings were poor,
but in respect of those commodities, they probably did not feel the want more than what
they had. They hardly made any effort to improve their lot. Life was simple and
contented and the simple wants were easily met so that the struggle for existence was not
heard. The common people did not feel the urge for improvement and hence did not
struggle for economic progress.
Dr. Tara Chand also refers to the pattern of consumption of the upper classes which
retarded the progress of the country in the economic field. The princes, nobles and the
provincial chiefs lived in grand style and in great luxury. Mughal nobility has been
described as “nothing but voluptuousness and wealth confusedly intermingled”. A lot of
money was spent on jewellery, costly dresses, horses and elephants. Each noble kept
hundreds of servants for his stables and household. A large sum of money was spent on
making presents to the king. The law of escheat required that all the accumulated wealth
of a noble after his death would go to the royal treasury. The result was that there was no
incentive to save and hence the nobles spent all that they had and something more. They
were mostly under debt. The result was that there was no accumulation of capital.
A reference may be made to the situation in Bengal in the latter half of the eighteenth
century. The servants of the English East India Company penetrated into the inner parts
of the country and compelled the handicraftsmen to deal exclusively with them. The
prices of the monopolised goods were arbitrarily fixed by the officials and the producers
were fleeced mercilessly. The weavers were compelled to enter into engagements to work
only for the English East India Company and for a breach of the contract, they were
punished with fine, imprisonment, flogging etc. Even the highest officials of the
Company were engaged in private trade which brought them huge sums of money. Even
the Directors of the English East India Company admitted that “the vast fortunes acquired
in the inland trade have been obtained by a scene of the most tyrannical and oppressive
conduct that was ever known in any age or country.” Vanisttart says that the English
compelled the natives to buy or sell at just what rates they pleased on pain of flogging or
confinement. It was estimated that between 1757 and 1765, the English East India
Company and its employees received 6 millions from the Indians as gifts. Lord Clive was
himself guilty of that offence. Trade monopoly, political corruption and exorbitant land
taxes enabled the English Company to transfer large sums of money annually to Britain.
There was a regular drain of wealth from Indian to Britain. Lord Cornwallis wrote in
1790, “The consequences of the heavy drain of wealth from the above causes, with the
addition of that which has been occasioned by the remittances of private fortunes, having
been for many years past and are now severely felt, by the great diminution of the current
specie and by the langour which has thereby been thrown upon the cultivation and
general commerce of the country.” Sir John Shore wrote in 1797, “The company are
merchants as well as sovereigns of the country. In the former capacity, they engross its

7
trade while in the latter they appropriate the revenues. The remittances to Europe of
revenues are made in the commodities of the country which are purchased by them.
Whatever allowance we may make for the increased industry of the subjects of the state,
owing to the enhanced demand for the produce of it, there is reason to conclude that the
benefits are more than counterbalanced by evils inseparable from the system of a remote
feign dominion.”

Education and Culture

Caste prejudices denied the benefits of education to the majority of people but for the
upper castes the doors of education were always open. The economic difficulties denied
the poorer sections of the society the benefits of education but whenever opportunities or
help were available poor parents sent their sons to schools. Besides the priestly class for
whom some education was essential for reading or understanding of scriptures, various
other sections of the society acquired at least some elementary knowledge of arithmetic
for common accounting purposes. The traders, merchants, businessmen, shopkeepers,
money-lenders, village-headmen, tax collectors, accountants, big cultivators considered
education essential for their children. Those Hindus and Mohamedans who were
themselves in a position of privilege or who were ambitious enough to place their sons in
employment at the courts, realised the value of higher learning and took pains to have
their sons as thoroughly educated as possible. Thus, in spite of many drawbacks, there
was a general demand in India for education. Indigenous educational institutions
therefore existed everywhere in the country. The systems of education were in no doubt
different from the modern systems and might be termed medieval but however defective
or unscientific, they served the needs of the time.
There were a few distinct categories of indigenous institutions. At the lowest level, but
scattered all over the country in the numerous villages, there were the village patshalas or
primary schools to impart elementary education. All the villages did not possess
patshalas but most of the big or thriving villages had their schools but, generally
speaking, the number of schools was quite inadequate and their maintenance was
miserable because Govt. did not concern themselves with education. There was no
system, no uniformity and no well conceived plan to regulate the schools. Most of the
patshalas were held in temple premises in religious institutions, in the verandahs, in huts
or even in cow-sheds or under tree. The teachers were far from qualified. All their
teaching concentrated on arithmetic which they considered perhaps the only essential
subject to be infused into minds of the young students. Modern subjects which widen the
mental horizon of the learners were unknown to the teachers themselves. There were no
printed books not even manuscripts. It was considered sufficient by parents if their sons
acquired an elementary grounding in three Rs. The teachers had no regular salary as the
term is understood in modern times. They managed to exist on the meagre gifts they
received at irregular intervals from the village patrons. One of the worst features of the

8
patshala education was the terror which the teacher caused to his young pupils with the
inevitable cane or rod in his hand and with his absolute right to inflict any amount of
physical punishment for any kind of lapse on the part of the pupil. The pain which the
teacher inflicted remained in the memory of the pupil till his old age, Stories of
punishments were narrated to children and grand-children to establish the value of
education as well as the merit of the teachers. The meritorious who could memorise the
arithmetical-tables and showed proficiency in solving complicated problems were
considered the really worthy disciples of their masters. The weaker minds, possibly with
the superior brains for other kinds of knowledge, suffered the punishment inflicted with
backs to the wall. They never had any opportunity to learn subjects in which they could
have exhibited their talent. Besides arithmetic, religious and mythological stories, and
tales from the Ramayana and Mahabharata were taught. On the whole, the village
patshalas met the demands of the society, and the teacher, served a useful purpose. Like
the Hindu patshalas, there-were Maktabs for the Muslim children in village. The Maktabs
too imparted the same elementary education in the same medieval and miserable setting,
with, of course, the Muslim religious learning in place of the Ramayana and
Mahabharata.
For higher education, there were tols and madrasas, the former for the learning of
Sanskrit and the latter for Arabic and Persian. Ruling chiefains, landlords, and wealthy
and charitable persons generally patronised such institutions. But, in general, their
condition was bad. The local powers were fighting among themselves and falling prey to
the foreign invaders and the wealthier individuals were passing through vicissitudes of
fortune during the second-half of the eighteenth century and, consequently, the higher
institutions of learning suffered from a dearth of patrons. Nevertheless they lingered on.
Sanskrit was the medium of higher education for the Hindu scholars. In South India,
monasteries were famous centres of Sanskrit learning where scholars were taught the
Vedas, the Upanishadas and Hindu philosophy by eminent teachers and pandits. Both in
the South and North, there existed numerious private Ltd. though, of course, the number
of scholars was not considerable in most of them. At the close of the eighteenth century,
there were about 190 tols in the district of 24 paraganas of Bengal alone. In the city of
Calcutta, in the early years of the 19th century there were 28 tols. In every part of India
the tols functioned in the traditional manner with doors open to the Brahmins and the
Vaisyas. Educational systems in the tols were age-old and stereotyped. Routine and
regulations were rigid. From morning to mid-day, afternoon to evening, and evening to
ten or eleven at night, the scholars had to study. Grammar, general literature, mythology,
logic and law were the main subjects. The Madarsas were not so many in number but
their conditions were rather better. From the days of the Mughal Emperor Akbar, Persian
was the court language and hence Hindus and Muslims alike were keen to learn it. Arabic
was mostly studied by orthodox Muslims who wished to become well-versed society,
patronised the madarsas. Most madarsas were attached to the mosques.

9
The character of education was medieval. Learning was confined to the scriptures,
mythology and religious laws. The deeper philosophies of Hinduism and Islam were
attainable by a few but for the vast majority of scholars, learning was embodied in
dogma. Memory rather than understanding, revision of lessons rather than into the
subject, remained the scholar’s supreme task. Broader avenues of knowledge, even wider
source of information did not form part of education. Enlightenment arising out of
rationalism, curiosity, inventions and research, and its offshoots in the shape of different
branches of science and humanities remained far from the scope of education. More
lamentable was the fact that the best and real aspects of ancient wisdom and science were
neglected whereas the superficial aspects of scriptural faith dominated the mind of the
educated. As a result, higher education only served an outmoded purpose.

Literature
During the eighteenth century, Urdu spread to all corners of India. Urdu literary circles
were established in every province of India. When the British dominion extended over
Northern India, Urdu was employed by the polite society of the Muslims and the Hindus.
The literature produced during this period was not of high order. Its poetry was
dilettantish, weighted with euphuism and conceit. Its spirit was shackled by artificial
limitations of rhyme. its mood alternated between the sensuous and spiritual, neither
deeply experienced. Clouds of pessimism and despair hung over it. It was away from
reality.
Both Hindi and Urdu poets of this period were virtuous. They were so much absorbed in
their pursuit that they almost lost the awareness of the meaning of life and higher purpose
of literature. Behind the diversities of language, race and creed, a deep cultural unity
pervaded the whole of India.
Heer Ranjha was written by Warris Shah in Punjabi. For Sindi literature, the eighteenth
century was a period of great achievement. Shah Abdul Latif composed his famous
collection of poems called Risalo. Sachal and Sami were the other great Sindi poets of
that century. Daya Ram was a great lyricist of Gujarat and he wrote during the eighteenth
century. Tayamanavar was one of the best exponents of Sittar poetry in Tamil.
During the eighteenth century, Christian missionaries set up printing presses in India and
brought out vemacular editions of the Bible. Ziegenbelg, a Dutch missionary, composed a
Tamil grammar and published a Tamil version of the Bible. The missionaries also
compiled a Tamil dictionary. Missionaries like Carey, Ward and Marshman set up a
printing press at Serampur and published a Bengali version of the Bible.

Art
As there was a lack of patronage at Delhi on account of the disintegration of the Mughal
Empire, the artists migrated to the state capitals like Hyderabad, Lucknow, Murshidabad,

10
Jaipur etc. In 1784, Asaf-ud-Daula built the great Imambara. It has no pillars or supports.
The palace of Suraj Mal at Dig, the capital of Bharatpur, was planned to rival the imperial
palaces at Agra. Work was started in 1725 but the same could not be completed.
Many painters of the Mughal school migrated to Hyderabad, Lucknow, Kashmir and
Patna and flourished there. New schools of painting achieved distinction. The paintings of
Kangra and Rajput schools revealed new vitality and taste. Music continued to develop
and flourish in the eighteenth century, particularly in the region of Muhammad Shah.

11
 Unit-II

Rise of Autonomous States with Special Reference to the

Marathas, Mysore, the Punjab, Avadh, Bengal and Hyderabad

Within a quarter of a century after the death of Aurangzeb, the Mughal Empire started
breaking up. Some of the provinces were occupied by the Marathas and in others the
Mughal Subedars proclaimed their independence. The most important among them were
the Subedars of Bengal, Avadh and Hyderabad

BENGAL
The Subah of Bengal included Bihar and Orissa. It was the first province of the Mughal
Empire to become autonomous and the first to pass under British rule. It became
autonomous under Murshid Quli Khan. He was appointed as Dewan of Bengal by
Aurangzeb and was allowed to continue in that post on account of his efficient
management of revenues. After the death of Aurangzeb, he started exercising the powers
of the Subedar also because Prince Farrukhsiyar who was appointed to that post by
Bahadur Shah was young and inexperienced. When Farrukhsiyar became Emperor in
1713, he appointed Murshid Quli Khan as Subedar of Bengal and Orissa. It gave a de jure
basis to his de facto authority. He was allowed to rule Bengal and Orissa till his death in
1727 without interference by the Mughal Emperor. After his death, Shujauddin, his son-
in-law, was appointed to this office. It was in this way that the office of Governor became
hereditary and the foundations of the dynasty of Murshid Quli Khan were laid.
Muhammad Shah, the Mughal Emperor; did not interfere with the authority of
Shujauddin and also made him the Governor of Bihar in 1733. After the death of
Shujauddin in 1739, his son Sarfaraz Khan succeeded to his office. In 1740, he was
defeated and killed by an adventurer named Alivardi Khan who had become a favourite
of Shujauddin and had risen to the office to Deputy Governor of Bihar. Alivardi Khan
commanded the support of a powerful faction in the court of the Nawab. It was headed by
Jagat Seth who wielded great influence in the Imperial Court also. After the invasion of
India by Nadir Shah in 1739, Muhammad Shah, the Mughal Emperor (1719-1748), found
himself helpless and confirmed Alivardi Khan to the office of Subedar after the receipt of
a present of Rs. 2 crores from him. For 12 years, Alivardi Khan was harassed by the
Marathas. In 1752, he gave to the Marathas Cuttack and also promised to pay a sum of a
Rs. 12 lakhs annually in lieu of Chauth. Alivardi Khan was a strong and capable ruler and
during the remaining period of his administration, Bengal enjoyed peace. He died in 1756
and was succeeded by his grandson Siraj-ud-daulah.
Siraj-ud-daulah was a youngman of 24 at the time of his accession. His greatest weakness
was his inability to take quick and firm decisions and his indecisiveness brought about his

12
ruin. His accession was peaceful because Alivardi Khan had taken pledges from his
principal officers that they would support Siraj-ud-daulah. With their powerful support
Siraj-ud-daulah quickly eliminated his rival, Ghasiti Begum, who wanted to put her
adopted son Murad-ud daulah on the throne. She was the eldest daughter of Alivardi
Khan and had a better title to the throne than Siraj-ud-daulah who was the son of his
youngest daughter. The Begum was forced to surrender and was placed under
confinement. Only Shaukat Jang, the son of the second daughter of Alivardi Khan, was
left in the field. He held the office of the Governor of Purnea. Siraj-ud-daulah did not take
action against him for the time being as the English East India Company demanded his
immediate attention..
The English East India Company was the richest among the European Companies in
Bengal and had great influence among the Indian traders and the official circles. The
officials of the English East India Company were secretly inciting Ghasiti Begum and
Shaukat Jang against Siraj-ud-daulah who got scent of their intrigues. For some time he
ignored them and marched against Shaukat Jang. From Raj Mahal, he turned back and
ordered the seizure of English factories. He personally marched against Calcutta,
captured it and drove the English into the sea. The main reasons why Siraj-ud-daulah
took action against the English Company was that it refused to stop strengthening the
fortifications of its factories. The Nawab was not prepared to allow the English Company
to fight against the French and add to his difficulties. He also did not approve to the trade
privileges enjoyed by the English Company. The servants of the English Company used
their Dustaks to evade the payment of transit duties. After capturing Calcutta and seizing
the English goods, the Nawab wrote to the Governor of Madras that unless the
Englishman gave him a pledge of obeying his authority in future, he would not allow
them to return to Bengal. The war against Shaukat Jang was then renewed and he was
defeated and killed in a battle.
As regards the attitude of the English authorities in Madras, they had a Royal Regiment
and a Naval Squadron in the South which could be used against Siraj-ud-daulah. These
forces had been sent from England to fight the French but as the war between England
and France had not started as yet, the Royal Regiment under the command of Clive and
the Naval Squadron under the command of Admiral Watson, were sent to Bengal. They
quick recovered Calcutta and sacked Hugli. Siraj-ud-daulah marched against the English
but made peace with them on 9 February 1757. He promised to restore the goods of the
English Company and also allowed the English to strengthen their fortifications. The
English were also given the permission to mint Sicca rupee. These concessions were
given because Siraj-ud-daulah apprehended an attack from the Afghans who had sacked
Delhi. The news of the Afghan invasion had reached him just when he had started his
operations against Calcutta. In return for these concessions, the English Company
promised to help Siraj-ud-daulah against the Afghans.

13
However, peace between the English and Siraj-ud-daulah did not last long. The Nawab
was suspicious of the designs of the English Company and secretly tried to win over
French. The English were aware of his designs against them and they decided to strike
down the French before the Nawab could extend his protection to them they knew that
the Nawab would not interfere so long as the Afghan inavaders were present at Delhi.
The result was that while the Nawab remained inactive on account of the fear of the
Afghans, The English seized Chandernagar in defiance of the wishes of the Nawab. All
that the Nawab could do was to take the French in Cossimbazar under his protection
where fugitives from Chandernagar had also come. Wher the English put pressure on him
for their surrender, he sent them to Patna. The English were convinced that the Nawab
would try to destroy them with French help as soon as he was free from the Afghan
danger. The result was that the English decided to overthrow him with the help of his
disaffected officials before he had time to attack them. The leaders of the disaffected
officials were two Seths, Mahtab Rai and Sarup Chand, and Mir Jafar, the uncle of the
Nawab, as he had insulted them. Mir Jafar was dissatisfied because he was distrusted by
the Nawab. Rai Durlab was disappointed because the Nawab had given preference to
Mohan Lal over Rai Durlab and appointed him as his principal adviser. Mir Jafar was
chosen as their candidate for the Gaddi of Bengal and the English promised to support
him. A secret treaty was concluded between Mir Jafar and the English Company by
which Mir Jafar promised the Zamindari of 24 Parganas and numerous rewards to the
English in addition to the concessions they already enjoyed. On 23 June, 1757 was fought
the battle of Plassey in which the English came out victorious. Mir Jafar did not take part
in the fighting demoralized by treachery, Siraj-ud-daulah ran away from the battle field.
However, he was captured and put to death. Mir Jafar became the Nawab of Bengal.
Mir Jafar was the Nawab of Bengal from 1757 to 1760. He was neither brilliant nor
active. He had not not capacity to carry on the administration of Bengal. Throughout this
period, he was merely a figure-head and the real power was in the hands of Clive.
Moreover, he was surrounded on all sides by difficulties. He has no money in the
treasury. When he ascended the throne, he had not enough even to meet his previous
commitments. The English Company pressed for the payment of the instalments but Mir
Jafar expressed his inability to do so.
Mir Jafar had to meet the danger from the Dutch. The real cause of Dutch trouble was
their jealousy of the British influence in Bengal. Although they had remained neutral
when the English and the Nawab fought, they were feeling worried about their own future
in the province. In 1759, six or seven, Dutch vessels with 300 Europeans and 600
Malayan soldiers appeared in the Ganges but they were defeated by Colonel Forde at
Bidderra. The Dutch fleet was defeated and captured. The Dutch made peace with the
English.

14
Ali Gohour was the elder son of the Mughal Emperor, Alamgir. He revolted against his
father and invaded Bihar. He was assisted by Muhammad Quli Khan, the first cousin of
Shuja ud-daulah of Avadh and the Subedar of Allahabad. Ali Gohour advanced upto
Patna but he was defeated by Clive. In 1760, Ali Gohour who had become Emperor Shah
Alam attacked again but he was defeated. As Mir Jafar was found to be unfit to deliver
the goods, he was deposed and Mir Kasim was appointed as the Nawab and he occupied
that position from 1760 to 1763.
Mir Kasim made a good beginning. He suppressed the rebellious Zamindars of Bengal
and Bihar. He forced the old officers 'to give up the money they had misappropriated. He
levied some Abwabs or additional cesses. He tried to organise his army on the lines of the
Europeans. He made arrangements for the manufacture of fire-locks and guns at
Monghyr. When he tried to put a check on the private inland trade of the servants of the
English Company, he was removed from the throne and Mir Jafar was put on the throne
again in July 1763. Mir Jafar had to make many concessions to the English Company.
Mir Jafar remained the Nawab of Bengal for the second time from July 1763 to February
1765. When he died in 1765, the Culcutta Council put his second son named Najam-ud-
daulah on the throne of Bengal. However, all power passed into the hands of the English
Company. The condition of Bengal was chaotic. There was anarchy, confusion, bribery,
corruption and extortion everywhere.
Such was the state of affairs when Clive came to India in 1765 as the Governor of Bengal
for the second time and he occupied that position for two years from 1765 to 1767. Clive
set up what is known as Daul Government of Bengal. Instead of appointing British
officers to conduct the Dewani Administration, he appointed the Deputy Nawabs, one for
Bengal and the other for Bihar, to conduct both, the Dewani (i.e., revenue and civil
justice) and Nizamat (i.e., military power and criminal justice) administration in the name
of the Nawab but under the effective control of the English. The Dual Government was
abolished in 1772 by Warren Hastings. It was in this way that the Subah of Bengal passed
under the British rule.

AVADH
Another province which became the seat of an independent Muslim kingdom was Avadh.
It became independent under Saadat Ali Khan, the leader of the Irani faction in the court
of Muhammad Shah. He was appointed Subedar of Avadh in 1723 and continued to rule
this province without interference from the Central Government. He cooperated with the
Mughal Emperor in his defence against the Marathas and Persians. During his long
tenure, the people began to look upon him as their real master and thus the foundations of
the Shia dynasty in Avadh were securely laid. Saadat Ali committed suicide in 1739 to
avert the wrath of Nadir Shah when he failed to tell him he places where the Imperial
treasury lay buried. He had no son and Safdar Jung, his son-in-law, was his only heir. The
Mughal Emperor appointed him to the Subedari of Avadh. Thus the office of the Subedar

15
of Avadh became hereditary in the family of Saadat Ali Khan. Safdar Jung was an able
soldier like his father-in-law. He won the favour of Muhammad Shah and his son Ahmed
Shah. When Ahmed Shah succeeded his father in 1748, he appointed Safdar Jung as his
Wazir. However, the friendship did not last long. The mind of the Mughal Emperor was
poisoned against Safdar Jung by his Turani rivals. The final break came in 1753 when the
Mughal Emperor dismissed Safdar Jung and drove him out of the capital with the help of
the Turanis. Safdar Jung did not survive his disgrace for long-and he died in 1754.
After his death, his son Shuja-ud-daulah, succeeded him to the throne of Avadh.
Although the Wazarat was held by Turanis, Shuja-ud-daulah continued to claim that
office as the successor of Safdar Jung. He was appointed to that office in 1760 by Ahmed
Shah Abdali as a reward of his military help against the Marathas. Thus, the office of
Wazir became hereditary in his family. Shuja-ud-daulah and his successors continued to
bear the title of Nawab Wazir. Shuja-ud-daulah fought on the side of the Afghans in the
Third Battle of Panipat in 1761. The defeat of the Marathas ensured his security against
their threatened raids.
Although the Maratha defeat at Panipat saved Avadh from them, it could not save in from
the English who had become kingmakers in Bengal after their victory in the battle of
Plassey in 1757. In 1763, the English deposed Mir Qasim and drove him out of Bengal.
Shuja-ud-daulah took up the cause of Mir Qasim. He took with him Shah Alam, the
Mughal Emperor who was then residing in Avadh as a fugitive, to lend prestige to the
expedition. However, the combined forces of Shuja-ud-daulah, Shah Alam and Mir
Qasim were badly defeated by Major Hector Munro at Buxar on 22 October 1764. After
this defeat, the Mughal Emperor went over to the English. Avadh was over-run by the
English and Shuja-ud-daulah took refuge in Rohilkhand. By the terms of a treaty settled
with the Mughal Emperor, Governor Vansittart of Bengal promised to allow him to rule
over Avadh. However, the situation changed in favour of Shuja-ud-daulah. Lord Clive,
the new Governor of Bengal (1765-67) decided to be friendly and made Avadh a buffer
state. By the treaty of Allahabad signed with Shuja-ud-daulah in August 1765, Clive
restored Avadh to him and promised British help for his defence. Shuja-ud-daulah was
required to pay a fine of Rs. 50 lakhs and hand over the districts of Kara and Allahabad to
the English Company. Those two districts were given to the Mughal Emperor for his
maintenance.
To begin with, Avadh gained immensely on account of its connection with the English
Company because it was in their interest to keep the buffer state strong and the Nawab
contented. In 1772. The Marathas returned to the North, restored the Mughal Emperor
and threatened to raid Avadh. The English Company induced Shuja-ud-daulah to
conclude a defensive alliance with the Rohillas who were suffering at the hands of the
Marathas. The English stood behind their allies and their force under General Baker
helped Shuja-ud-daulah in 1773 in preventing the Marathas from invading Rohilkhand.

16
However, the Marathas returned to the South on hearing the news of death of Peshwa
Madhav Rao. This enabled Warren Hastings to strengthen Avadh and also British
connection with the state. He met Shuja-ud-daulah at Banaras in 1773 and concluded a
new treaty with him. According to that treaty, Kara and Allahabad were restored to the
Nawab but he was required to pay Rs. 50 lakh for their restoration. He was also required
to pay the expense of British forces permanently stationed in Avadh for its defence.
Warren Hastings promised to help the Nawab to realise Rs. 40 lakh from the Rohilas who
had not paid that amount as the price of his support against the Marathas according to the
treaty of 1772. Peshwa Narayan Rao was murdered at Poona in 1772 and a civil war
began in Maharashtra. That removed the fear of Maratha intervention in Rohilkhand and
the Nawab conquered it in 1774 with British help. Shuja-ud-daulah enlarged the
boundaries of Avadh. In 1775, Shuja ud-daulah died and he was succeeded by his son
Asaf-ud-daulah.
The accession of Asaf-ud-daulah marked the beginning of the degradation and
exploitation of Avadh by the British. That was due to the fact that Asaf-ud-daulah was
weak and the British were growing in strength day by day. Warren Hastings obliged the
Nawab to accept another brigade and pay for it. The British acquired the right of
nominating his ministers and the British Resident in Avadh stated interfering in its
administration. Private British merchants entered Avadh and started exploiting it in the
name of private trade. The result was that there was a rapid decline in the prosperity of
Avadh and steady deterioration in its administration. The treasury was exhausted on
account of the extravagance of the Nawab and the drain of money for meeting the
expenses of the subsidiary force. The revenues of the state dwindled on account of bad
man agement and mis-appropriation by the officials of the Nawab. Asaf-ud-daulah
pleaded and protested against the heavy expenses of the subsidiary force and British
interference in his administration, but without any result. British hold over Avadh grew
tighter day by day and the exploitation of Avadh went on increasing. Asaf-ud-daulah died
in 1797 and his son Wazir Ali was recognised by Sir John Shore (1793-1798) as his
successor but later on he was deposed Saadat Ali, the younger brother of Asaf-ud-daulah,
was put on the throne. Thus, the British assumed the role of king-makers in Avadh.
Lord, Wellesley, the new Governor General, put pressure on Saadat Ali to sign the
annexation of Avadh by the British but the Nawab refuse however, Lord Welleseley
forced a new treaty upon him in 1801. By that treaty, the British took away from Avadh
Rohilkhand and the eastern districts to pay the expenses of the subsidiary force. There
was absolutely no justification for this act of high-handedness.
The British attitude towards Avadh continued to be one of exploitation. While Saddat Ali
managed to make any saving by his careful management of revenues and personal
economies, it was taken away from his successor Ghazi-ud-din in the form of loans which
were never returned. In lieu of them, the Nawab got the title of the King of Avadh.

17
During the administration of Lord William Bentinck (1828-1835), there was a danger to
the very existence of the state of Avadh on account of its mis-government but that was
not done on account of the fear of offending Muslim public opinion. He merely issued a
warning to Nasir-ud-din, the ruler of Avadh, that he would be pensioned off if he
persisted in neglecting the administration of the state.
Nasir-ud-din died in 1837 and he was succeeded by Muhammad Ali. A new treaty was
imposed upon Muhammad Ali by Lord Auckland by which Muhammad Ali was required
to pay for another British Brigade. It was agreed that if Muhammad Ali failed to reform
the administration, he would hand it over to the English East India Company and allow its
officials to introduce the necessary reforms. However, the new treaty was rejected by the
Court of Directors. It is unfortunate that Lord Auckland did not inform Muhammad Ali
that the treaty had not approved of by the Home Government and the result was that it
remained in force. The Nawab was merely told that he would not be required to pay for
additional troops.
In 1812, Muhammad Ali was succeeded by Amjad Ali. As the First Afghan War was still
going on, Avadh escaped the attention of Lord Auckland. In 1847, Amjad Ali was
succeeded by Wajid Ali Shah. Lord Hardinge (1844-1948), the now Governor-General,
gave a warning to Wajid Ali Shah that if he failed to carry out the necessary reforms
within two years, the administration of Avadh would be taken over by the English
Company. In 1848, Lord Dalhousie became the Governor-General and he was determined
to annex the Indian States on one excuse or another. In 1849, he appointed Col Sleeman
as Resident in Avadh with instructions to report on its administration. The report was that
law and order had broken down in Avadh and the Nawab wasted his time in frivolus
amusements. Sleeman recommended that the administration of Avadh should be taken
over by the British temporarily under the terms of the treaty of 1837. In 1854, Col.
Outram was sent as Resident to Lucknow to report on the administration of the Nawab.
His report was that irresponsible and unscrupulous favorites of the Nawab were
misappropriating the revenues and oppressing the people. Lord Dalhousie asked the
Nawab to hand over the administration permanently to the English Company. A new
treaty embodying those terms was presented to Wajid Ali Shah, but he refused to sign it.
The result was that Avadh was annexed on 13 February 1856 by a proclamation. The
Nawab was pensioned off and sent of Calcutta. The annexation of Avadh was one of the
important causes of the Revolt of 1857.

HYDERABAD
Hyderabad was formed by the six Deccan Subas of the Mughal Empire for which a
Viceroy used to be appointed. The Deccan was a newly conquered region in which
Imperial authority could not be consolidated on account of straggle with the Marathas. In
imitation of the Marathas example, Zulfiqar Khan, the most powerful and reputed
General of Aurangzeb, formed plans to seize the Deccan Subas after the death of

18
Aurangzeb in 1707. In order to achieve his aim, he entered into a secret understanding
with the Marathas. He was Shia and his aim was to build up a Shia kingdom on the ruins
of Bijapur and Golkunda. Another powerful Mansabdar who aspired to create an
independent kingdom in the Deccan was Chin Qilich Khan belonged to two rivals
factions in the Mughal Court, namely Irani and Turani. For some years after the death of
Aurangzeb, Zulfiqar Khan and his father Asad Khan who had held the office of Wazir
under kurangzeb continued to exercise great influence at the Mughal court. In 1808,
Zulfiqar Khan managed to secure the viceroyalty of the Deccan from Bahadur Shah
(1707-1712), the Mughal Emperor and he held that post till 1713 when he was murdered
by Farrukhsiyar. In 1713 Chin Qilich Khan was appointed as the Viceroy of the Deccan.
Chin Qilich Khan combined in himself military administrative skill and diplomatic
statureness of a high order. After his appointment as Viceroy of the Deccan, he restored
order in the administration and started consolidating his position by diplomacy and war.
He refused to pay Chauth to the Marathas and formed plans to destroy their power by
extending his support to Sambhaji II, a rival of Sahu. However, his plans were upset by
the Sayyid Brothers who established their control over the Imperial Government. In 1715,
Hussain Ali, the younger of the two Sayyid brothers was appointed the Viceroy of the
Deccan. The Nizam returned to the Deccan in 1719 when he became convinced that the
Sayyid brothers were determined to destroy him. He seized the Viceroyalty of the Deccan
after killing Alam Ali, the nephew of Hussain Ali, who was acting as his deputy. Shortly
afterwards, Hussain Ali was killed by Muhmmad Shah the Mughal Emperor, with the
help of Muhmmad Amin Khan, a cousin of the Nizam. Abdullah, the Sayyid brother, was
imprisioned. After liberating himself from the yoke of the Sayyid brothers, the Mughal
Emperor extended his favour to the Turanis, Muhmmad Amin Khan was appointed Wazir
and the Nizam was confirmed in the viceroyalty of the Deccan. After the death of
Muhmmad Amin Khan in 1722, the Nizam was recalled to Delhi and appointed Wazir.
However, his mind was set on establishing an independent kingdom in the Deccan. When
the Nizam found that the companions of the Emperor were poisoning the mind of the
Emperor against him, he went back to the Deccan in 1724. The Emperor ordered,
Mubariz Khan, the Deputy Viceroy to oppose and kill him, but the Nizam defeated and
killed him which the help of the Marathas and sent his head to the Emperor. The Mughal
Emperor was left with no choice except to confirm the Nizam in the Viceroyalty of the
Deccan. The Nizam continued to rule the Deccan until his death in 1748. He successfully
resisted the Maratha encroachments and maintained law and order in his territory. He laid
the foundations of the Asafjahi dynasty.
After the death of the Nizam in 1748, a war of succession broke out between his son
Nasir Jang and his daugther's son Muzaffar Jang. Muzaffar Jang sought French help but
in the end he was defeated and obliged to surrender to his uncle. Shortly after that, Nasir
Jang was murdered. This foul murder made the French masters of the situation. Muzaffar
Jang who became the Nizam after the death of Nasir Jang, was too weak to run the

19
Government. He borrowed the help of the French troops under General Bussy to capture
Hyderabad. However, luck did not favour him and he too was murdered. In that
emergency, Bussy released Salabat Jang who was a prisoner in his camp and proclaimed
him the Nizam. Salabat Jang was a weak man and he soon realised that without French
help, he could not remain on the throne. He requested Bussy to stay on and gave him the
Jagir of Northern Circars for meeting the expenses of his troops. The French position in
Carnatic became weak and in 1758 Bussy was recalled by General Lally to help him in
the war against the British. It gave the British a chance to put an end to French
ascendancy over Hyderabad. Clive sent Col. Forde from Bengal to seize the Northern
Circars and the same was done. Salabat Jang could not expel the British from Northern
Circars and hence allowed them to hold the same lieu of tribute.
Salabat Jang was overthrown by his brother Nizam Ali. He offended the Peshwa by
refusing to pay him the arrears of Chautb. The Peshwa attacked him and inflicted upon
him a crushing defeat at Udgir in 1760. Nizam Ali was forced to cede almost half to his
territory. After that, the state of Hyderabad would have been occupied by the Marathas
sooner or later, but the Marathas themselves were defeated in the Third Battle of Panipat
in 1761, Peshwa Balaji Baji Rao passed away and there was confusion in the Maratha
empire. The Nizam took advantage of the situation and repudiated the treaty of Udgir.
The rise of Hyder Ali in Mysore created a new situation. He seized the District of
Balaghat from the Nizam. The result was that the Nizam entered into an alliance with
Peshwa Madhav Rao in 1766. He also entered into an alliance with the British against
Hyder Ali. This alliance excited the suspicions of the Peshwa who attacked Mysore alone
and withdrew after forcing Hyder Ali to accept his terms. Hyder Ali offered help to the
Nizam to recover the Northern Circars from the British who had not paid any tribute. The
Nizam accepted the offer to Hyder Ali and turned against the British. The combined army
of the Nizam and Hyder Ali was defeated at Changama and, Trincomali by General
Smith. The result was that the Nizam deserted Hyder Ali and rejoined the British. The
Nizam entered into a treaty with the British in 1768 by which the British promised to help
the Nizam in recovering Balaghat from Hyder Ali and in return for this help, the Nizam
promised to give them the fifth District of the Northern Circars called Guntoor after the
death of his brother Basalat Jang of whose Jagir it formed a part.
For a few years after the treaty of 1768, the Nizam remained dissatisfied with the British
who did not pay him tribute for the Northern Circars regularly. When the British
occupied Guntoor by bribing Basalat Jang. The Nizam turned against them and joined the
coalition formed by the Peshwa and Hyder Ali in 1780. Warren Hastings tried to appease
the Nizam by resorting to him Guntoor and paying a part of the arrears of tribute. In
1782, when Basalt Jang died, Warren Hastings did not demand Guntoor because the war
against Mysore was going on. Lord Cornwallis put pressure on the Nizam to surrender
Guntoor and the Nizam demanded British help to recover Balaghat from Mysore.

20
Cornwallis agreed but still hostilities did not start because the Nizam hesitated to attack
Mysore. Cornwallis persuaded the Nizam and the Peshwa to join the British against
Sultan and after the Third Mysore War. The Nizam got Balaghat as his share in the
territory conquered from Mysore.
After the retirement of Cornwallis in 1793, the British under Sir John Shore followed a
policy of non-intervention of Indian politics. The result was that the Marathas attacked
the Nizam and defeated him in battle the Kharda in March 1795. The Nizam was forced
to give to the Marathas a large part of the territory in lieu of the arrears of Chauth. Inspite
of that, the Marathas continued to threaten the Nizam. The result was that when in 1798,
Lord Welleseley offered the Nizam protection against the Marathas, he readily accepted
the same and entered into a subsidiary treaty with the British. He acknowledged British
paramountcy, agreed to disband his French trained force and accepted an English
subsidiary force and pay its expenses. This treaty was revised after the fall of Tipu in
1799, and the Nizam ceded all the territory which he had acquired from Mysore.
Hyderabad became a vassal state of the British. The Nizam was forced to accept what
came to be called the Hyderabad Contingent. This force was to be used only for the
defence of Hyderabad. As the Nizam did not play its expenses regularly, Lord Dalhousie
took from the Nizam the province of Berar in 1853 to defray the expenses of the
Hyderabad Contingent. During the revolt of 1857-58, the Nizam rendered valuable
services to the British. As the policy of annexation of the Indian States was given up by
the British after the Revolt of 1857-58, the State of Hyderabad was not annexed and
continued to exist even when the British left India in 1947.

MYSORE
Next to Hyderabad, the most important power that emerged in South Indian was Mysore
under Hyder Ali. The kingdom of Mysore had preserved its precarious independence ever
since the end of the Vijayanagar Empire. Early in the 11th century, two ministers
Nanjaraj (the Sarvadhikari) and Devraj (the Dulwai) had seized power in Mysore and
reduced the King Chikka Krishna Raj to a mere puppet.
Hyder Ali had a humble beginning, but he shot into prominence as a military leader. By
dint of his military skill and qualities of leadership, he became the Faujdar of Dindigal in
1755. By misappropriating the revenues of Dindigal, he managed to raise an independent
army for himself. In 1761, he overthrew Nanjaraj and established his authority over the
Mysore state.
In 1763, he occupied Bednore. With the booty which feel into his hands, he strengthened
his financial position. He also conquered Canara. He set up his capital at Seringapatam.
He was able to build up a strong war-machine within a short time.
Form the very beginning, the relations of Hyder Ali with the English East India Company
were strained. That was due to many causes. In the earlier phase of his career, he had

21
secured valuable help from the French. In 1760, A Portuguese Bishop had promoted an
alliance between Hyder Ali and the French. For his help against the British Count Lally
had agreed to pay Hyder Ali Rs. 10,000/- per month and also the forts of Thaigur and
Elvanasore. After the expulsion of the British, Hyder Ali was expected to get
Trichinopoly, Madurai, Tinnevelly etc. The British force under Major More was routed.
However, the capture of Villenore by Sir Eyre Coote exercised a demoralising influence
on Hyder Ali and weekened his alliance with the French. When Hyder Ali was busy in
crushing his opponents in Mysore, the British did much to discredit him. This was
resented by Hyder Ali. When Pondicherry surrendered to the British in January 1761,
Hyder Ali took about 300 French soldiers in his service. There was also hostility between
Hyder Ali and Mohammad Ali, the Nawab of Carnatic. There were many districts in the
Carnatic which were claimed both by Hyder Ali and Mohammad Ali. Mohammad Ali
allowed British troops to be stationed at Vellore but this was resented by Hyder Ali who
took into service Raja Sahib, son of Chanda Sahib and gave protection to Mahfuz Khan,
brother and rival of Mohammad Ali.
It is true that after the collapse of French power in Southern India, Hyder Ali tried to
patch up with the British but nothing came out of it. The Madras Government encouraged
the Nizam to take up arms against Hyder Ali and offered to give necessary military help
for that purpose. The Nizam enjoyed the support of the Marathas and thus a triple alliance
was formed against Hyder Ali. In November 1767, the Madras Government concluded a
treaty with the Nizam by which it agreed to pay him a tribute of Rs. 5 lakhs for the
Northern Circars. The Madras Government promised not to acquire Circar of Guntoor so
long as Balasat Jang lived. The British promised military help to the Nizam against his
enemies. The Madras Government was keen to acquire Carnatic and Balaghat which were
help by Hyder Ali and agreed to pay Rs. 7 lakhs to the Nizam for its Diwani. This
engagement acknowledged the sovereignty of the Nizam over the dominions of Hyder
Ali. Both the Nizam and the Poona Government was keen to prey upon the territories of
Hyder Ali and the British Government agreed to help him.
The British alliance with the Nizam provoked Hyder Ali. The Nizam advanced into
Mysore in August 1767. Hyder Ali was able to win over the Marathas by promising them
a sum of Rs. 23 lakhs. He also managed to win over the Nizam. The result was that the
British were left alone. It is true that they fought well but the opposition of Hyder Ali and
his son Tipu was formidable. Tipu was able to reach near Madras itself and plundered its
suburbs. The Madras authorities entered into a peace treaty, in April 1769. Both the
parties agreed to give up the territories conquered by them but the fort and district of
Kurur were to be retained by Hyder Ali. There was also a provision for an alliance for
mutual aid in case either party was attached by a third power.
In 1770, Mysore was invaded by Peshwa Madhav Rao. The Madras Government was
approached for help by Hyder Ali but the same was denied. This was treated by Hyder

22
Ali as a violation of the treaty of 1769. The Bombay Government concluded a treaty with
Hyder Ali which gave them trading privileges in Mysore in exchange for guns, salt-petre,
lead etc. but the treaty was disapproved by the Court of Directors of English East India
Company in 1772. By the treaty of Surat signed in March 1775, the Bombay Government
committed itself to support the claims of Raghoba for Peshwaship. The British were to
get Salsette and Bessein. Inspite of that, Hyder Ali tried to establish friendly relations
with the British and he was bitter when there was no response. He took many Frenchman
in service and secured arms and stores from the French. He entered into friendly relations
with the Dutch. In August 1778, the British attached Pondicherry and after is occupation,
they sent an expedition against Mahe. Hyder Ali protested as he was getting his military
supplies mostly through Mahe. He sent his troops to defend Mahe but inspite of that
Mahe was captured by the British in March 1779. That embittered the relations between
Hyder Ali and the British. The Nizam was also annoyed with the British who had not
paid tribute for the Northern Circars. It was under these circumstances that the Grand
Quadruple Alliance consisting of Hyder Ali, the Nizam, the Poona Government and
Bhonsla of Nagpur was formed against the British.
Second Mysore War (1780-84)
The Second Mysore War started in 1780 and continued upto 1784. Bhonsla of Nagpur
who was the enemy of the Poona Government, was won over by Warren Hastings and he
left the alliance. The Nizam also deserted Hyder Ali. The Poona Government also left the
alliance. The result was that Hyder Ali had to fight against the British without any help.
During the early phase of the war, the war-machine of Hyder Ali was superior to the
British army and it carried everything before it. The army of Hyder Ali was so near
Madras that many of its residents ran away in panic. The towns of Porto Novo and
Conjeevaram were plundered. The armies led by Baille and Fletcher were defeated.
Munro, the Commander-in-Chief, retired to Madras and Hyder Ali occupied Arcot-capital
of Carnatic. However, Sir Eyre Cootle was able to deal with Hyder Ali effectively at
Porto Novo in July 1781. Hyder Ali was forced to recall Tipu who was besieging
Wandiwash. The battle of Polldure in August 1781 was a drawn one. Sire Eyre Coote
inflicted a crusing defeat on Hyder Ali at Solinger Nagapatnam and Trincomali were
captured by the British. Inspite of these reverses, Hyder Ali continued to fight till his
death in December 1782.
After the death of Hyder Ali, the war was continued by his son, Sultan Tipu. He
successfully wasted Bendor but failed to capture Manglore. The British took the offensive
and proceeded towards Seringapatam. As both sides were sick of war, it was ended by the
treaty of Mangalore in May 1784. Both the parties agreed to restore the conquests made
by them and also liberate the prisoners of war.

23
Third Mysore War (1790-92)
Very elaborate preparations were made by Lord Cornwallis to fight against Sultan Tipu.
He offered very attractive terms to the Marathas. A treaty of alliance was signed in June
1790 with the Peshwa. A similar treaty was made with the Nizam in July 1790. Both of
these treaties were defective alliances against Tipu and provided for an equal share of
conquests. It is true that Tipu was aware of these happenings and he tried to secure
French help but he failed on account of the Revolution in France. He also failed to win
over the Nizam and the Peshwa to his side. He appealed to Cornwallis for peace but the
same was rejected and the Third Mysore War started which continued from 1790 to 1792.
To begin with things did not go in favour of the British inspite of help from the Marathas
and the Nizam. However, when Cornwallis himself took the command, he captured
Bangalore and defeated Tipu. In 1792, Cornwallis captured the hill forts of Tipu and
advanced upon Seringapatam. The Marathas completely destroyed the Mysore territory.
Finding his position hopeless, Tipu asked for peace and the treaty of Seringapatam was
signed in March 1792. Tipu had to give up half of his territory. He was to surrender two
of his sons as hostages. The British, the Nizam and the Marathas divided the acquired
territories.
Fourth Mysore War
Sultan Tipu did not forget his humiliation in 1792 and he made elaborate preparations to
fight against the British. He sent his emissaries to Kabul, Constantinople, Arabia and
Mauritius. He tried to correspond with Napoleon who was in Egypt at that time. French
Generals were engaged to trains his forces. The situation was serious and Lord Wellesley
was fully aware of it. He made full preparations to fight against Sultan Tipu. He entered
into a subsidiary alliance with the Nizam in September 1798. The Marathas were
approached but their reply was evasive.
Lord Wellesley went personally to Madras to direct the political and military
arrangements. The Madras army of 20,000 men under General Harris was joined by
16,000 troops from Hyderabad under Arthur Wellesley. General Stuart commanded the
Bombay force of more than 6,000 men and it assembled in Malabar. Another large army
commanded by Reed and Brown marched from Trichinopoly. Lord Wellesley demanded
absolute submission from Sultan Tipu and as he refused to do so, war was declared. The
main army was under General Harries and he proceeded towards Mysore. Aruthur
Wellesley was incharge of the Nizam's contingent. A force from Bombay marched
towards Mysore. The armies carried everything before them and reached Seringapatam.
Sultan Tipu refused to accept the humiliating terms offered to him and died fighting at
Seringapatam in May 1799. After the war, Lord Wellesely annexed large and important
territories which included Kanara, Coimbatore and Seringapatam. Mysore was
surrounded on all sides by British territories. The Nizam was given some territories as a
reward. Some territories were offered to the Marathas but they refused. A child of the

24
Hindu family which had been turned out by Hyder Ali was placed on the throne of
Mysore and Mysore continued to flourish under the control of the Government of India
during the 19th century. The state of Mysore was still there when India became
independent in 1947.

THE MARATHAS
The rise of the Marathas started even during the reign of Aurangzeb under the leader-ship
of Shivaji. Shivaji was coronated in 1674 and he became the sovereign ruler of
Maharashtra. However, he died in 1680 and was succeeded by his son Sambhaji who
ruled from 1680 to 1689. He was defeated and captured by Aurangzeb. He was tortured
and put to death in March 1689. The leadership of the Marathas was taken over by Raja
Ram who continued the crusade against the Mughals for 11 years from 1689 to 1700.
After his death, the war against the Mughals was carried on by the Marathas from 1700 to
1707 under the leadership of Tara Bai, his widow.
After the death of Aurangzeb in 1707, the Mughals tried to divide the Marathas. In 1707,
Zulfikar Khan, the Governor of the Deccan, set Sahu, son of Sambhaji, free and the latter
claimed the Government of the Marathas from Tara Bai. When Sahu was released by the
Mughals, there started a struggle between the followers of Shau and Tara Bai. Ultimately,
Tara Bai was defeated and she retired to Kolhapur with her son Shivaji II. When Shivaji
II died, his step-brother Sambhaji was put on the Gaddi of Kolhapur. Sahu was
recognised as the ruler of the Marathas on the Gaddi of Satara and he ruled from 1707 to
1749.
Balaji Vishwanath (1713-20)
It was during the reign of Sahu that Balaji Vishwanath came to the forefront and all
power in the state fell into his hands. Sahu had a very high opinion of his ability, loyalty
and character. In 1713, Balaji Vishwanath was appointed Peshwa and he continued to
occupy that position upto 1720 when he died. Balaji Vishwanath won over Kanhoji
Angria, he head of the Navy and one of the most powerful barons. He persuaded him to
come to Satara to offer his homage to Sahu. When diplomacy failed, Balaji Vishwanath
used force and it was through this method that he put down such powerful and defiant
barons as Damaji Thorat, Uydaji Chavan and Krishna Rao Khataokar. In this way, Balaji
Vishwanath restored order in the Maratha Kingdom and stablised the position of Sahu.
He could not uproot the rival house of Kolhapur because during his term of office no
serious trouble was created by Sambhaji and the acquisition of Chauth and Sardeshmukhi
of the Deccan demanded his serious attention.
During the reign of Aurangzeb, the Marathas had started exacting Chauth and Sarde
shmukhi by force. Ultimately, Aurangzeb got tired of war and expressed his readiness to
concede the Maratha demand in order to save the six Deccan Subahs from their raids but
no settlement could be made because neither side trusted the other. After the death of

25
Aurangzeb when Bahadur Shah, the new Mughal Emperor came to the South to fight
against Kam Baksh, the agents of Sahu presented to him a petition from their master
praying for the grant of Chauth and Sardeshmukhi of the Deccan Subahs. As a similar
petition came from Tara Bai, the Mughal Emperor evaded the demand by saying that the
rival claimants should first decided between themselves as to who was the lawful ruler of
the Marathas. It left Sahu with no choice except allowing his captains to raid the Deccan
Subahs and to collect whatever amount they could by force. These raids forced the
Mughal Viceroy Daud Khan Pani to agree to pay Chauth and Sardeshmukhi in 1712, but
before this agreement could be put into effect, he was replaced by Nizam-ul-Mulk as
Viceroy of the Deccan in 1713. The Nizam was too proud to submit to the Maratha
demand and the same was the case with his successor, Syed Hussain Ali (1715-18). The
struggle continued and the Mughals tried to defend the Deccan Subahs against the
Maratha incursions. Ultimately, Syed Hussain Ali was forced to come to terms with the
Marathas and enlist their support for the overthrow of the Mughal Emperor. A treaty was
signed by Syed Hussain Ali whereby the right of Sahu of levy Chauth and Sardeshmuhki
was recognised. It directly meant the recognition of Sahu as the lawful ruler of the
Marathas by the Mughals. It considerably strengthened his position. In accordance with
the terms of the treaty, Balaji Vishwanath accompanied Syed Hussain Ali to Delhi along
with 15,000 troops under the command of Senapati Khand Rao Dabdhada. His son, Balaji
Rao, also accompanied him, while at Delhi, the Marathas helped the Syed brothers in
overthrowing Farruaksiyar. They also saw with their own eyes the rotten state of the
Mughal Government. The treaty was ratified in February 1719 by Rafi-ud-Darajat who
had succeeded Farrukhsiyar as the Mughal Emperor. The treaty was the crowning
achievement of Balaji Vishwanath. Shortly after his return from Delhi, Balaji Vishwanath
died and Sahu appointed his son Baji Rao as successor.
About the character and achievements of Balaji Vishwahath, Sir Richard Temple writes
that he had a calm, comprehensive and commanding intellect, an imaginative and
inspiring disposition, an aptitude for ruling rude nature by moral force, a genius for
diplomatic combinations and a master of finance. His political destiny propelled him into
affairs wherein his misery must have been acute. He wrung by power of menace and
argument from the Mughals a recognition of Maratha sovereignty. He carried victoriously
all his diplomatic points and when he died he could have the satisfaction that a Hindu
Empire had been created over the ruins of Mohammadan power and of that empire the
hereditary chiefship had been secured for his family. The view of Sardesai is that Balaji
Vishwanath evinced rare foresight and statesmanship in utilizing all available resources
towards completing the task of constructing a Hindu empire which Shivaji had set before
himself and which had all but crumbled away during the troubles of the two proceeding
reigns. Balaji had to look to the North as his path to the South was permanently closed by
the independent kingdom of Tarabai.

26
Baji Rao I (1720-1740)
Baji Rao I was hardly 20 at the time of his appointment as Peshwa. He was an excellent
rider, a bold fighter, a clever tactician and a born leader. Besides, he possessed diplomatic
acumen of a high order. The Marathas were fortunate in having such a leader at a time
when the Mughal empire was disintegrating. Under the leadership of Baji Rao I, the
Marathas also joined in the scrabble for power and were able to extend their influence
and control in various directions.
The view of Baji Rao I was that the Mughal empire was rotten to the core and it lacked
the strength to resist the Marathas. Therefore, the Marathas should not lose time in
launching Northward drive. They could seize power at the center at once and when what
was one, the Deccan along with the other provinces would easily pass under their control,
Baji Rao is stated to have remarked "Strike, Strike at the trunk of the withering tree; the
branches will fall off themselves.” Inspite of this, during the first 8 years of his office as
Peshwa, the south claimed his first attention and during that period he devoted his whole
energy to the conquest of the Carnatic. It was only after the realisation of the fact that the
Nizam was ready to defend it at all costs that he concentrated his energies on the conquest
of Malwa.
The Provinces of Malwa and Gujarat were situated to the North of the Vindhyas on the
borders of the Maratha sphere of influence. The routes to Delhi lay through them. They
were also rich and were counted among the most prosperous provinces of the Mughal
Empire. After the acquisition of the Chauth and Sardeshmukhi of the six Subahs of the
Deccan, it was natural for the Marathas to claim the right to collect Chauth and
Sardeshmukhi from Malwa and Gujarat. The argument on the basis of which they got the
right of Chauth and Sardeshmukhi from the Deccan, also held good in the case of Malwa
and Gujarat. When Balaji Vishwanath proceeded to Delhi in 1719, Sahu asked him to
submit a petition to the Mughal Emperor for the grant of Chauth and Sardeshmukhi of
Malwa and Gujarat. However, the petition was rejected by the Mughal Emperor. The
result was that Sahu decided to levy these imposts by force. He assigned the work of
collecting Chauth and Sardeshmukhi from Gujarat to Senapti Khande Rao Dabhade and
from Malwa to the Peshwa. The Senapati entrusted the work to his Lieutenants viz,
Kanthaji Kadam Banda and Pilaji Gaekwad, Peshwa Baji Rao I personally invaded
Malwa in 1723, defeated and killed Sayyid Bahadur, the Mughal Governor of Malwa, and
appointed Ranoji Sindhia, Malhar Rao Holkar and Udaji Pawar in the different parts of
Malwa to collect Chauth and Sardeshmukhi. It was in this manner that the Maratha
expansion North of the Vindhyas began. However, they had to struggle hard before they
could secure a firm hold over these provinces.
Conquest of Gujarat
It is true that after 1723, the Peshwa could not pay much attention to Malwa due to his
pre occupation in the South but the internal strife among the Mughals in Gujarat gave the

27
Marathas a chance to fish in troubled waters and establish themselves firmly in that
province. Civil war among the Mughals began in 1724 when the Nizam was replaced by
Sarbuland Khan as the Subedar of Gujarat. At that time, Hamid Khan, the uncle of the
Nizam, was acting as the Deputy of the Nizam in Gujarat. Sarbuland Khan himself stayed
at Delhi and sent his deputy Shujat Khan to take charge from Hamid Khan. Hamid Khan
also wanted to become the ruler of Gujarat and got the support of the Marathas by
conceding them the right to collect Chauth and Sardeshmukhi. With the help of Kanthaji,
Hamid Khan defeated and killed Shujat Khan and his brother Rustam Ali who came from
Surat to avenge him. Sarbuland Khan himself marched to Gujarat and expelled Hamid
Khan, but the could not expel the marathas who harried him by their guerilla tactics. In
1727, Sarbuland Khan agreed to pay the Marathas Chauth and Sardeshmukhi in Gujarat.
The Mughal Emperor did not approve of this arrangement, recalled Sarbuland Khan and
sent Raja Abhay Singh as Governor of Gujarat with orders to turn out the Marathas from
Gujarat. Abhay Singh invited Pilaji, treacherously put him to death and occupied Baroda.
Damaji, son of Pilaji, renewed the struggle, recovered Baroda and harassed Abhay Singh
so much that the latter for Jodhpur without any success. Kanthaji occupied northern
Gujarat and Damaji the southern half of the province. Ultimately, Kanthaji was expelled
by Damaji who became the sole master of the province of Gujarat.
Malwa
For Malwa, the Peshwa had to fight a hard and prolonged struggle with the Mughals
before the right to collect Chauth and Sardeshmukhi was conceded to him by the Mughal
Emperor. In this struggle, he received valuable support from the local Hindu chief. The
Hindustani party at the imperial Court headed by Mir bakshi, Khan-i-Dauran and Raja Jai
Singh gave him political support against the faction of the foreign nobles who advised the
Mughal Emperor to resist the Marathas by force. On account of the dispute with the
Nizam over Carnatic, the Peshwa was not able to give his full attention of Malwa till
1728. As regards Carnatic, the Peshwa wanted to occupy but the Nizam was equally
determined to defend it because it formed a part of the Deccan Subah. To begin with, the
Nizam tried to undermine the position of Sahu by granting Jagirs to those Maratha
officers who turned hostile to their master. The Nizam also entered into a league with
Sambhaji, rival to Sahu. In 1727 when the Peshwa was proceeding to Carnatic, the Nizam
wrote of Sahu that until his dispute with Sambhaji was settled, he would not pay Chauth
and he must accept his mediation in it. Without waiting for his reply, the Nizam invaded
the Maratha kingdom and did a lot of destruction. The Peshwa hit back and inflicted a
crushing defeat on the Nizam in 1728 at Palkhed. This defeat unnerved the Nizam. He
sued for peace and by the treaty of Mungi Shivaon promised to pay Chauth as usual and
withdraw his support to Sambhaji.
At this time, disquieting news came to the Peshwa from malwa and Bundelkhand. In
Malwa, Girdhar Bahadur the new Mughal Governor, refused to pay Chauth and tried to

28
expel the Lieutenants of the Peshwa from Malwa. In Bundelkhand, Muhammad Khan
Bangash, Governor of Allahabad, had invaded the kingdom of Chhatrasal and besieged
him. Its fall was imminent and Chhatrasal asked for help from the Peshwa. The Peshwa
himself proceeded to Bundhelkhand and despatched a division of his army under the
command of his brother Chinnaji Appa to Malwa to deal with Girdhar Bahadur. Both the
expeditions were crowned with success. In Bundhelkhand, the Peshwa forced
Muhammad Khan Bangash to raise the siege of Jaipur and give a solemn undertaking that
he would not interfere in Bundhelkhand again. Chhatrasal treated the Peshwa as his own
son gave him one third of his kingdom in the form of Jagir. In Malwa, Chinnaji defeated
and killed both Girdhar Bahadur and his nephew Daya Bahadur in the battle of Amjhera
in 1729. Bhawani Ram, the son of Girdhar Bahadur, took refuge behind walls of Ujjain
which was the capital of Malwa. The Marathas could not capture it on account of want to
artillery.
Sawai Jai Singh of Jaipur was sent as Governor to Malwa by the Mughal Emperor in
1723. He was a friend of the Peshwa and his aim was to keep Malwa for himself and to
induce the Mughal Emperor to accept Maratha protection. They were to be given Jagirs
elsewhere for the expenses of their army. Shau agreed to accept his Jagir in lieu of the
Chauth of Malwa but the arrangement was rejected by the Mughal Emperor under the
influence of the foreign nobles at the Imperial Court. The war continued. Muhammad
Khan Bangash was sent to replace Jai Singh in Malwa in 1731. At this time, there was
some trouble in Gujarat where the Peshwa wanted to assert his authority as the Chief
Executive of the Maratha Empire but it was resented by Senapati and he turned against
the Peshwa. The Nizam, Muhammad Khan Bangash and the Senapati combined against
the Peshwa, but before the Nizam could send help of Gujarat, Peshwa Baji Rao pounced
upon Senapati Trimbak Rao Debhade and defeated and killed him in the battle of Dabhai
in 1731. On hearing the news, the Nizam also opened negotiations with the Peshwa and
gave a pledge not to attack the kingdom of Sahu when the latter invaded Malwa.
Muhammad Khan Bangash was replaced by Jai Singh in Malwa.
Sawai Jai Singh was a friend of the Marathas and wanted to use them as counterpoise to
the foreign faction in the Imperial Court. However, he could not expel the Marathas from
Malwa even if he tried to do so. After making a show of resistance and suffering a defeat
at Mandsore, he finally withdrew to Jaipur in 1733. It exposed Rajasthan and the Doab to
the Maratha incursions. Between 1733 and 1735, the Imperial forces were sent to drive
out the Marathas but they failed miserably in their objective. Jai Singh was allowed to
open negotiations with the Peshwa in 1736. The negotiations failed because the Peshwa
demanded a war indemnity of Rs. 50 lakhs, control over Mathura, Prayag and Kashi and
the office of Sardeshpandya in South in addition to Malwa.
The struggle was revived and a large army was sent to the Doab to defend it against the
Marathas. Saadat Khan, the Subahdar of Avadh, was also invited to cooperate. To begin

29
with, the Marathas were defeated. However, the Peshwa put himself at the head of the
army and suddenly appeared before Delhi. He defeated a small army sent against him and
withdrew to Jaipur. The raid to the Peshwa on Delhi in 1737 served only to stiffen the
Imperial resistance. Muhammad Shah pardoned the Nizam and invited him to head the
imperial army against the Peshwa. The Nizam accepted the invitation. With a large army
and best artillery that could be secured, the Nizam marched towards the South to
surrounded and destroy the Marathas by putting them between himself and his son Nasir
Jang who was ordered to make a simultaneous movement towards the north, The Peshwa
outmanouvred him. Leaving his brother Chinnaji to check the advance of Nasir Jang from
the south, he himself marched northwards to deal with the Nizam. The Peshwa drove the
Nizam into Bhopal and cut off his supply. The Nizam sued for peace in 1738 and by the
convention of Dorcha Sarai promised to secure the cession of Malwa from the Mughal
Emperor. However, the Nizam broke his promise as soon as he reached Delhi. Malwa
was formally ceded to the Marathas in 1741.
Westward Expansion
Under Baji Rao, the Marathas strengthened their position on the west coast and humbled
there enemies viz, the Sidis of Janjira and the Portuguese. War against the Sidis was
started in 1733 to avenge the insult to the temple of Parashwarn built by Brahmendra
Swame Sahu whom the Peshwa regarded as their spiritual guide. Sidi Sat who had
desecrated was killed and Raigarh and a large part of the Maratha territory in Konkan'
recovered from the Sidis. The Marathas failed to capture Janjira, the capital of the Sidis,
on account of their naval weakness. They were not able to attack Goa but they were able
to get Salsette and a Bassein from the Portuguese. The capture of Salsette was the
crowning achievement of Baji Rao as Peshwa. He died in 1740 and was succeeded by his
son Peshwa Balaji Baji Rao.
Baji Rao was a great general and soldier. He possessed indomitable courage and
extraordinary personal bravery. He was incomparable as a soldier. No amount of hardship
or fatigue was too much for his iron constitution. In guerilla warfare, he had no equal. He
was next only to Shivaji. The way he humbled the pride of Nizam-ul-Mulk shows his
ability. He inspired his followers with confidence and commanded their loyalty. He led
them from victory to victory. His mobility and brillant tratics were responsible for his
success. His originality of plan, boldness of execution and an eye for strategy show that
he was a great commander. He stands head and shoulders above his contemporaries in
Maharashtra. He had the head to plan and the hand to execute. The view of Sardesai is
that the 20 years of the active career of Baji Rao withnessed a complete revolution in the
character of the Maratha state and an entire redistribution of political power throughout
India. When he died in 1740, the political centre of gravity shifted from the Court of
Delhi to that of Sahu. The map of India was dotted with numerous centres of Marathas
power. Baji Rao became the creator of Maharashtra.

30
According to H.G. Rawilnson, "He was the most remarkable man next to Shivaji himself
that his nation had produced. In the words of the historian of the Marathas, his was 'the
head to plan and the hand to execute.' Tall and Commanding in appearance he was like all
his family, famous for his good looks. He was equally great as a soldier and as a
statesman. He understood to perfection the peculiar tactics of the Marathas horse, and his
campaigns against the Nizam were masterpieces of strategy. He was as chivalrous in the
hour of victory as he was brave in the field. A politician he had the lofty and far-reaching
ambitions of his father, and he lived to see the tiny maratha race once" a cloud no bigger
than a man's hand', spread all over India, from Delhi to Tanjore. He was an eloquent and
inspiring orator, and it in private life he had something of the haughty and imperious
reserve of the Chitpavan; he was a generous master to those who served him faithfully,"
(Cambridge History of India, Vol. IV, p. 407).
However, Dr. Sinha observe, “Despites his great talents as a soldier and a leader of men,
Baji Rao lacked some of the sterling qualities of a statesman. He was domineering in his
attitude towards others and overbearing in his manners. He was a soldier to the core, and
could never bear opposition. Fortunately, he possessed resourcefulness in plenty, and,
therefore he could bear down all opposition. It is said that he had the head to plan and the
hand to execute. True, but too much masterfulness cuts at the root of statesmanship. A
little elasticity of temper adds salt to statecraft. Hence Baji Rao made many enemies in
his lifetime, and left as many behind. He did not know how to conciliate. He knew how to
domineer. But domination even when dictated by absolutely selfless or disinterested
motives antagnoises people more often than we suppose; and Baji Rao's domination was
not disinterested. There is no gainsaying the fact that he was deeply imbued with a love
of self-glory though he was also deeply loyal to his chief Sahu and to the cause of his
country. He firmly believed that all he did, was for the good of Maharasthra and that his
lead was not only desirable but indispensable. Naturally he gave offence to many by such
an attitude as this. At the beginning of his regime he met with much opposition, and as he
succeeded in overcoming it step by step, he gained greater and grater self-confidence. His
brilliant victories made him a terror to his enemies and a trust-worthy friend to Sahu. His
attitude towards the Maratha Confederacy was Stein and unrelenting. He wanted that its
members should work in harmony, under the guidance of the peshwas. He would not let
them go there own way, and would not brook any other's authority than his own. Thus
actuated he incurred the jealousy and hostility of many of the prominent members of the
Confederacy. The Pratinidhi, Dabhade, Raghoji Bhonsla, Fatteh Singh Bhonsla, and
Angre all these nourished a jealousy against Baji Rao because he was both ambitious and
domineering. He tried to suppress the same faults in others, and therefore, incurred the
implacable hostility of others. Had he been a little more conciliating and considerate, he
would have won over many of those who became his avowed enemies" (Rise of Peshwas,
pp. 202-3).

31
Balaji Baji Rao (1740-1761)
During the regime of Balaji Baji Rao, the political situation in the country became more
favourable to the Marathas than before. The prestige of the Mughal Empire was
completely gone after the invasion of India by Nadir Shah in 1739. The Provincial
Governors and the Princes were divided among themselves and were not able to put up
joint resistance to the Marathas. In the Deccan, Nizam-ul-Mulk passed away in 1748.
Muhammad Shah, the Mughal Emperor, also died in the same year. Swai Jai Singh had
died in 1743. Their successors were weak and that was an additional advantage to the
Marathas. They could expand in all directions.
One of the leading Maratha chiefs during this period was Raghuji Bhonsle who ruled over
a part of the Berar and Gondwana from his capital at Nagpur. He claimed equality with
the Peshwa on account of being related to Chhattrapati Sahu. Sahu had assigned to him
the Chauth of Bengal in 1738. He could not start operations in that province till 1741.
During 1740-41, he was sent on an expedition to the Carnatic. In 1740, the Nizam was
away in Delhi. The Marathas took advantage of it to seize the Carnatic. Sahu ordered
Raghuji Bhonsle to invade the Carnatic. he defeated Nawab Dost Ali, the Governor,
occupied Trichinopoly and captured Dost Ali's son in-law Chandar Sahib who was trying
to seize the Maratha kingdom of Tanjore. Raghuji Bhonsle invaded Bengal in 1741. In
the end, Ali Vardi Khan accepted defeat and purchased peace by the ceding the territory
upto the river Subarna-Rekha and promised to pay Rs. 12 lakhs annually in lieu of Chauth
of Bengal and Bihar.
While Rajhuji Bhonsle was plundering Bengal, the Peshwa was engaged in a struggle
with the Nizam in the South. The quarrel had been renewed in 1741 when the Marathas
invaded the Carnatic. In 1743, the Nizam drove them out of Trichinopoly and other
places which they had occupied during that expedition. The Marathas could not retaliate
immediately as the Peshwa was busy in the north. In the intervening period, Salabat Jang
became the Nizam in Hyderabad under French protection. The Peshwa was alarmed. To
begin with, he could not achieve much success on account of powerful artillery of Bussy.
However, in the end guerrilla tactics of the Marathas succeded. In 1752, Bussy induced
the Nizam conclude peace by ceding territory in West Berar between the Narbada and the
Tapti rivers. That did not satisfy the Peshwa. In 1760, the Nizam was defeated at Udgir
and by the treaty of peace, he ceded almost half the territory to the Marathas.
During the period, the Marathas were making progress in the North, Chauth was imposed
on the Rajput states. Jahansi was occupied. In 1754, the Marathas helped Wazir Imad-ul-
Mulk in deposing and killing Emperor Ahemd Shah (1748-1754) and setting up Alamgir
II on the throne as a puppet. Imad-ul-Mulk accepted Maratha protection and gave them
Jagirs in the Doab for the expenses of a small force which they agreed to post in the
neighbourhood of Delhi for the defence of the Mughal Emperor. As the guardians of the
Mughal Empire, the Marahathas came into conflict with the Afghans. In 1758,

32
Raghundath Rao, the brother of the Peshwa, drove out Najib ud daulah from Delhi. He
had been posted by Ahmed Shah Abdali as his agent to manage the affairs. Raghunath
Rao drove out Tirmur Shah, son of Ahmed Shah Abdail, who had been appointed as the
Governor of the Punjab. This happened in 1758. During this expedition, the Marathas
proceeded as far as Attack.
By 1760, the Marathas power had reached its zenith. However, their control over Delhi
and occupation of the Punjab brought them into conflict with Ahmed Shah Abdail and his
Rohilla allies. Ahmed Shah Abdali invaded India in 1750, recovered the Punjab and
Delhi and waited in the Doab to fight the maratha army which was under the nominal
command of Vishwas Rao, the son of the Peshwa and the effective command of his
cousin Sadashiv Rao Bhau. The Third Battle of Panipat was fought on 14 January 1761
between the Marathas and Ahmed Shah Abdali in which the Marathas were defeated.
This defeat proved disastrous to the Marathas. The flower of their race perished in that
battle and their enemies raised their heads in all directions. The Marathas managed to
overcome the crisis caused by the defeat and after a decade recovered their control over
Delhi. However, by that time a new power came on the scene and that power they could
not defeat. That power was the English East India Company. The Marathas fought three
wars against the English Company and lost all of them. The first maratha War lasted from
1778 to 1782 and was ended by the threaty of Salbai in 1782. The Second Maratha War
was fought from 1802 to 1804. The third maratha War was fought from 1817 to 1818.
The net result of these wars was that the Marathas as a power disappeared from the scene.
However, some remnants of the former Maratha state continued their existence during the
British rule.

THE PUNJAB
Guru Nanak was the founder of Skihism. He was merely a spiritual leader and had
nothing to do with politics. He died in 1539 and was succeeded by Guru Angad (1539-
1552), Guru Amar Das (1552-1574), Guru Ram Dass (1564-1581), Guru Arjan Dev
(1581-1606), Guru Hargovind (1606-1645), Guru Har Rai (1645-1661). Guru Harkishan
(1661-1664), Guru Tegh Bahadur (1664-1675) and Guru Gobind Singh (1675-1708). The
third and fourth Gurus made important contributions to the organisation of the Sikh
Church. Under Guru Arjan Dev, Sikhism spread readily in the rural areas of the Punjab
and the number of Sikhs went up tremendously. His greatest contribution was the
compilation of the Adi Granth, Guru Das Dev was arrested and executed under the orders
of Emperor Jahangir in 1606. Guru Hargobind put on two swords, one standing for the
piri (religious side) and the other for the Miri (temporal side). He inculcated among his
followers the love of manly supports such as hunting and wrestling, weapons of war and
military training. He also raised a small force of horsemen and other combatants. Hence
forward, militarism came to occupy an important place in the Sikh way of life. That led to
many armed clashes between the Sikhs and Emperor Shahjahan. Guru Har Rai continued

33
to maintain a body of troops but had no conflict with the Mughal Government.
Aurangzeb began to interfere in Sikh religion. Its culmination was reached when Guru
Tegh' Bahadur was executed in 1675. Guru Govind Singh came to the Gaddi at a very
critical time. The Mughal Government was hostile towards the Sikhs and was determined
to strike them down. Guru Govind Singh succeeded in imparting new vigour and strength
in the Sikh community. He called the Khalsa Singhs meaning lions and brought them in
line with the ancient heroic traditions of the Rajputs and the Kshatriyas. he inculcated in
them the belief that they were the warriors of God, under his special protection fighting
for his cause. Their fight was á Dharmyudh, a war of righteousness. He introduced
regular military training among his followers. He built forts for the protection of his
headquarters at Anandpur. He raised weapons of war to the position of deities, worthy of
worship..
Guru Govind Singh died in the Deccan in 1708. By that time, the Sikhs had grown into a
powerful and well-knit community. They had developed certain specific institutions.
They had built up some rallying centres. They had evolved the order of the Khalsa with a
clear-cut code of discipline. They had got a highly inspiring ideology which shaped their
impulses and channelized their newly released energies.
Before his death in 1708 in the Deccan, Guru Gobind Singh had sent Banda Bahadur with
a few of his devoted Sikhs to the Punjab to take advantage of the vacuum created in the
North by the withdrawal of the Mughal Emperor and his army from there to Deccan and
to pensalise Wazir Khan to Sirhind and other oppressors of the Sikhs. Banda Bhadur and
his companions achieved great success in their mission. They captured a vast area in East
Punjab, including the towns of Samana, Sarhind and Sadhaura and set up first
independent Khalsa state with its capital at Mukhlispur (renamed as Lohgarh) in the
neighborhood of Jagadhari. The seal of the new state bore a Persian inscription invoking
the greatness of the founder of Sikhism, Guru Nank. The English translation of the
Persian inscription struck on the coins reads as follows:
“By the grace of the True Lord is struck the coin in the two words: The Sword of Nanak
is the granter of all boons and the Victory is of Govind Singh, King of Kings.”
The victory of the Khalsa alarmed the Mughal Emperor, Bahadur Shah (1707-1712) who
personally led an expedition against the Sikhs. Banda Bahadur offered stiff resistance but
finding his cause lost, he retired to the Shivalik hills to bid his time for a fresh bid for
power. The death of Bahadur Shah in 1712 gave him the desired opportunity which he
exploited to the best of his ability. He re-emerged into the plains of East Punjab and
succeeded in re-establishing a Khalsa state. However, when the Mughal Emperor took
action against him he was driven out of his capital and later on at Gurdasangal (near
Gurdasnpur), he was overtaken and besieged along with his whole army. The siege lasted
for about 9 months and ultimately he was captured along with hundreds of his
companions and marched to Delhi where they were all executed. Banda himself was

34
hacked to pieces, limb by limb. About Banda, Dr. Ganda Singh writes, “It was through
him that the path of conquest and freedom was discovered by the people of the Punjab.
He was first man to deal a severe blow at the intolerant rule of the Mughals in the Punjab.
After the death of Banda, there was a division among the Sikhs who were divided into
two parts knows as the Bandais and the Tat Khalsa. The former were the followers of
Banda and the latter were the orthodox Sikhs. Through the efforts of Bhai Mani Singh
and Mata Sundri, the widow of Guru Gobind Singh, the differences between the two were
composed in 1721.
Zakariay Khan was the Mughal Governor of the Punjab from 1726 to 1745. He followed
a policy of harassing and persecuting the Sikhs in every possible way. The Singh Van and
his 21 followers were killed by the Mughal troops. The Mughal Governor appealed to
Muslim fanaticism and the Haidri flag was hoisted. However, the Sikhs were able to
defeat the Mughal forces at a place near Bhilowal. After that, Zakariya Khan tried to
placate the Sikhs but the latter organised themselves into the Dal Khalsa. There were two
main divisions of the Dal Khalsa known as the Budha Dal and the Taruna Dal. The
Budha Dal consisted of the army of the young. Both the Dals worked under the common
leadership of Nawab Kapur Singh. The members of the Taruna Dal were a source of
nuisance to the Mughal forces. They overran the whole of the Bari Doab and some of
them crossed the Sutlaj and helped Ala Singh to set up a small state in Malwa.
In 1739, the Sikhs fell upon the rear of the army of Nadir Shah when he was retreating
from Delhi along with his booty. They were able to snatch away a lot of booty from the
Afghans. The result was that Zakariya Khan decided to destroy the Sikhs root and branch.
Prizes were offered to those who helped him in his work. The Sikhs were hunted like
wild beasts and they retired to the hills and jungles. In 1742, Haqiqat Rai was put on
death. Mahtab Singh, Buta Singh and Bhai Taru Singh were executed. The Sikhs also hit
back. They attacked Sialkot and murdered all those Qazis and Mullahs who had a hand in
the execution of Haqiqut Rai. The plundered Gondlandwala and its Faujder was killed.
However, they were defeated near Basoli hills and about 7000 of them were killed and
3000 were taken prisoners. This is know as the first Ghalughara (Great Holocaust). This
happened in 1746.
There was a civil war in the Punjab in 1746-47 and ultimately Shah Nawab Khan became
the Governor of the Punjab. He was succeeded soon after by Mir Mannu as Governor of
the Punjab. He also followed a policy of persecuting the Sikhs. However, inspite of all
these sufferings, the Sikhs remained unsubdued. The greater the persecution, the greater
became their fanaticism. The common danger and their strong religious feelings kept
them under discipline and made every Sikh obey his leader in order to work for the cause
of the Panth". Since all of them were suffering, they all joined hands against the Muslim
rulers. There were also prospects of getting money if the Muslims were turned out from
the Punjab.

35
After the death of Mannu in 1753, Mughlani Begum, his widow, captured all power in the
Punjab. There was complete chaos in the Punjab. She was imprisoned and Adina Beg was
appointed the Governor of the Punjab. He made an alliance with the Sikhs and invited the
Marathas, but he was killed in 1758.
Ahmed Shah Abdali attacked India many times. In 1761, he defeated the Marathas in the
Third Battle of Panipat. However, when he was going back, he was harassed by the
Sikhs. The Sikhs also gave a lot of trouble to the Afghan Faujdar. They won a victory at
Gujranwala and occupied Lahore. Ahmed Saha Abdali came back in 1762 and inflicted a
curshing defeat on the Sikhs. He ordered wholesale massacre of the Sikhs and that is
known as the second Ghalughara in the Sikh history. The Hari Mandir (Amritsar) was
destroyed. However, the Sikhs regained their prestige by defeating Ahmed Shah Abdali
in the battle of Amritsar and the latter was obliged to run away. Ahmed Shah Abdali
attacked the Punjab in 1764 to teach a lesson to Sikhs, - but they ran away to the hills and
jungles and hence no harm was done to them. Ahmed Shah Abdali invaded the Punjab
again in 1766-67, but the Sikhs were not curshed.
It is worthy of notice that the frequent invasions of Ahmed, Shah Abdali added to the
confusion and anarchy in the Punjab and thus paved the way for rise of the Sikhs in the
Punjab. Another effect of the invasions of Ahmed Shah Abdali was that the Punjabis
became warlike. They learnt to take up arms to defend their hearths and homes.
At this time, 12 Misls came into existence. Their names were Faizalpuria on Singhpuria
Misl. Ahluwalia Misl, Bhangi Misl. Ramgarhia Misl, Kanheyie Misl, Sukarchakya Misl,
Phulkian Misl, Dallewalia Misl, Nishawalia Misl, Karosingha Misl, Shahids’ Misl or
Nihangs’ Mils and the Nakai Misl, Cunningham, author of History of the Sikhs,
described Misls as having the nature “of a theocratic confederacy which was democratic
in composition and religious in its cohesive principles”. The view of Ibbetson is that the
organisation of the Sikhs Misl was “a curious mixture of theocracy, democracy and
absolutism.” It is difficult to calculate the exact fighting strength of the Sikh Misls. It is
generally believed that their total strength was about one lakh. The background of the
armies of the Misls was the cavalry. There was no regular training for the soldiers and the
weapons commonly used by them were swords, spears, matchbloks, sabres etc. The
soldiers of the Misls believed more in guerilla warfare than in pitched battles. Most of the
Misls were annexed by Maharaja Ranjit Singh and some of them accepted the protection
of the English East India Company.
It was under the leadership of Maharaja Ranjit Singh that the Sikhs were able to establish
a strong state in the Punjab. Ranjit Singh was born in 1780. At the age of 19, he helped
Zaman Shah, the Afghan ruler of Kabul, in invading the Punjab. Out of gratitude, Zaman
Shah appointed Ranjit Singh as the Governor of Lahore in 1799. He was given the title of
Raja. In 1802, he made himself the master of Amritsar. By and by, he brought under his
control the Sikh Misls west of the Sutlej.

36
Maharaja Ranjit Singh was forced to sign the treaty of Amritsar in 1809 by the English
East India Company. This treaty fixed river Sutlej as the boundary line between the
territories of Ranjit Singh and that of the English Company. It is true that as a result of
this treaty, Maharaja Ranjit Singh was not able to bring under his control the Sikh states
beyond the Sutlej, but he got free hand to expand in the rest of the Punjab and also
outside. He died in 1839. At the time of his death, his kingdom included besides the
Punjab plains to the north to Sutlej, Dera Ghazi Khan, Dera Ismail Khan, Bannu, Kohat,
Peshawar, Hazara, Kashmir, Ladakh, Jammu, Kohistan and some territories of the cis
Sutlej region.
After the death of Maharaja Ranjit Singh in 1839, there was no stability in Punjab. After
defeating the Sikhs in the first Sikh War (1845-46) and the second Sikhs War (1848-
1849), the Punjab was annexed by Lord Dalhousie in March 1849.

37
 British Expansion in India up to 1818 and from 1818 to 1956

The English East India Company was established on 31 December 1600. Queen Elizabeth
granted a charter to the governor and Company of Merchants of London for trading in the
East Indies. In 1615, Sir Thomas Roe was sent to the court of Jahangir by James 1, King
of England, to secure trading concessions for the English Company from the Mughal
Emperor. In 1622, the English Company captured Ormuz from the Portuguese with the
help of the King of Iran. The English also set up their trading stations at Aramgaon and
Masulipatam. The site of Madras was bought by the English Company in 1640.
Permission was obtained to set up a fortified factory called St. George. In 1633, factories
were set up at Balasore and Hariharpore. In 1651, a factory was set up at Hugli. In 1661
the English Company got the Island of Bombay from Charles II at a nominal rent of $10 a
year.
In 1714, the Presidencies of Culcutta, Madras and Bombay sent a combined mission to
the Court of Emperor Farrukhsiyar under John Surman. With the help of William
Hamiliton who had cured the emperor of a disease, John Surman, was able to get three
Firmans in July 1717. By those firmans, the right of the English Company to trade duty
free in Bengal in lieu of an annual payment of Rs. 3,000 was confirmed. The English
Company was also allowed to settle wherever it pleased and to rent additional territories
round Calcutta. In the case of Hyderabad, the English Company was allowed freedom
from all dues except the rent paid for Madras. In the Province of Gujarat, a yearly sum of
Rs. 10,000 was accepted in satisfaction of all customs dues at Surat. The rupee coined by
the English Company at Bombay was made current throughout the Mughal Empire.
Anglo-French Conflict in the Deccan
The English East India Company had to fight against the French East India Company in
the Deccan. Three Carnatic Wars were fought between the English Company and the
French Company and as a result of those wars, the English Company came out victorious
and the French power was completely eliminated in the Deccan.
The first Carnatic War (1746-48) was merely an echo of the War of Austrian Succession
which broke out in Europe in connection with the succession of Maria Theresa to the
throne of Austria-Hungary. Despite the wishes and instructions of the Home authorities,
hostilities broke out in India in 1746. The English Navy under Barnett took the offensive
when it caputured some Bourdonnais, the French Governor of Mauritius, for help. La
Bourdonnais fought his way towards the Coromandel Coast, defeating an English fleet on
the way. Madras was besieged by the French, both by land and sea. On 21 September
1746, Madras capitulated to the French. Inspite of strong protests of Dupleix, La
Bourdonnais who had been heavily bribed by the English, restored Madras to the English.
However, Dupleix did not despair and re-captured Madras. He also tried to capture Fort

38
St. David, a small English factory north of Pondicherry but he was not successful. An
English squadron under Boscawen was equally unsuccessful in the siege of Pondicherry
during June-October 1748. The first Carnatic War came to an end with the termination of
hostilities in Europe. Under the treaty of Aix-La Chapelle signed in 1748, Madras was
restored to the English in exchange for Louishburg which the French got in North
America. Thus the first round of struggle between the two Companies proved a drawn
one.
The second Carnatic War lasted from 1749 to 1754. Dupleix tried to take advantage of
disputed successions in Hyderabad and the Carnatic. He supported the candidature of
Muzaffar Jang, a grandson of Nizam-ul-Mulk, for the Subahadari of the Deccan and that
of Chanda Sahib for the Nawabship of the Carnatic. The combined armies of Muzaffar
Jang, Chanda Sahib and the French defeated and killed Anwar-ud-din in the battle of
Aubur in August 1749 and Nasir Jang was over powered and killed in the encounter of
December 1750. Eliminating the rivals, the french candidates were successful both in
Carnatic and Hyderabad. Muzaffar Jang surrenterritories south of the river Krishna. The
Subahadar was prevailed upon to accept a French force at Hyderabad ostensibly for the
defence of the new Subahadar but really to defend French interests there.
These happenings compromised the English position in the Deccan who decided to
support rival candidates both for Hyderabad and the Carnatic. They gave military aid to
Mohammad Ali, the rival candidate for the Nawabship of Carnatic who was besiged at
Trichinopoly by Chanda Sahib. In August 1751, Robert Clive captured Arcot, the capital
of the Carnatic. The English commander, Stringer Lawrence, relieved Trichinopoly. In
the same year, a French force under Law surrendered before the English. Chanda Sahib
was killed by the Raja of Tanjore and the English candidate Mohammad Ali became the
Nawab of Carnatic. However, the French remained established at Hyderabad. In 1754,
Dupleix was called back by the French Government and in January 1755, a provisional
peace treaty was signed between the two companies in India. Thus, the second round of
the conflict proved inconclusive.
The third Carnatic War lasted from 1758 to 1763. It was also an echo of the struggle
between the French and English in Europe. Count Lally reached India and captured Fort
St. David. He also besieged Madras but the appearance of a strong English Naval force
compelled Count Lally to give up the siege. The English fleet defeated the French fleet
thrice and compelled it to retire from the Indian waters. The English control of the sea left
the field open for them and their final victory was longer in doubt. The French were
defeated in the battle of Wandiwash in 1760 and Pondicherry surrendered in 1761. Mahe
and Jinji were lost by the French in quick succession. The third and final round of the
conflict in the Deccan between the English and the French proved decisive. Pondicherry
and some other French settlements were returned to the French by the treaty of Paris in
1763 but they were not to be fortified. The French ceased to be a political factor in India.

39
Establishment of British Power in Bengal (1756-1772)
Ali Vardi Khan who had become the Nawab of Bengal in 1740, died in 1756. He was
succeded by Siraj-ud-daulah as the Nawab of Bengal. He was a youngman of 24. Age
was not only self-willed but also self-indulgent. Very soon, he came into conflict with the
English in Bengal. In anticipation of the out-break of the Seven Years War, the English in
Bengal began to fortify their settlements. This they did without the permission of the
Nawab and hence the Nawab ordered them to demolish the same. As the English refused
to do so, that provided a ground of complaint. Moreover, the English took up the cause of
Shaukat Jang who was a rival of Siraj-ud-daulah. The English also gave shelter to a rich
merchant of Bengal and refused to hand him over to the Nawab even when the latter
made a demand to that effect. It was also found that the English in Bengal were abusing
the trade privileges given to them by the Mughal Emperor, Siraj-ud-daulah captured the
English factory at Qasim Bazar and also took possession of the city of Calcutta. 146
persons including one woman, were captured and shut up in a very all room at night. The
heat was so great and the space was so small that 123 of them died on account of
suffocation; Only 23 of them survived and one of them was Holwell. This incident is
known as the Blackhole Tragedy.
The Englishmen were indignant. Admiral Watson and Colonel Clive were sent to bengal
to have revenge. They were able to capture Bengal without much difficulty. Siraj-ud-
daulan attacked Calcutta and there was an indecisive battle. However, peace was restored
and the English got back all their privileges. They were also allowed to fortify Calcutta.
The Englishmen were not satisfied with this. A conspiracy was hatched against the
Nawab. ‘Rai Durlab, the Treasurer of the Nawab, Mir Jafar' the Commander-in chief of
the force of the Nawab and Jagat Seth, the richest banker of Bengal, joined the
conspiracy. Details were settled through Amin Chand. It was decided that Clive was to
march to Plassey. Mir Jafar was to desert the Nawab and join Clive with all the forces
under his command. The Nawab was to be deposed and Mir Jafar was to be put on the
throne of Bengal. When the details were settled, Amin Chand threatened to give out the
whole conspiracy unless he was given a sum of Rs 30 lakhs and he wanted that amount to
be mentioned in the treaty itself. Clive decided to deal with Amin Chand in the way he
deserved. He got two copies of the treaty prepared. One treaty was on white paper and the
other on red paper. In the treaty on white paper, there was no mention of the payment of
Rs. 30 lakhs to Amin Chand. There was a mention of that amount in the treaty on red
paper. Admiral Watson refused to sign on the false treaty and Clive himself forged the
signatures of Watson on it. It was in this way that Amin Chand was duped.
When everything was ready, Clive complained to the Nawab about the grievances of the
Englishmen in Bengal and marched toward Plassey at the head of an army. The battle of
Plassey took place on 23 June 1757. It is pointed out that the battle of Plassey was a battle
only in name because the Englishmen lost 29 men in all and the Nawab about 500 in all.

40
The major part of the army of Nawab did not take part in the fighting. Only a small group
of the soldiers of Nawab led by Mir Madan and Mohan Lal fought bravely in the battle.
The Nawab ran away from the battle-field but was captured and put to death.
Mir Jafar was put on the throne of Bengal and he occupied that throne upto 1760. The
English Company got the right of free trade in Bengal, Bihar and Orissa. It also got the
Zamindari of 24 parganas near Calcutta. The Nawab was forced to pay Rs. 17,700,000 as
compensation for the attack on Calcutta. He was also made to pay large sums of money
as presents or bribes to the high officials of English Company. Clive himself got more
than two million rupees and Watson one million rupees. It is estimated that both the
English Company and its servants collected more that 20 million rupees from Mir Jafar. It
was understood that the English merchants and officials would not be asked to pay taxes
on their private trade.
Very great importance is given to the battle of Plassey in the history of Modern India. It is
pointed out that this victory paved the way for the British mastery of Bengal and
ultimately the whole of India. With their base in Bengal, the English were able to extend
their conquests to the whole of Northern India. British prestige rose very high in India.
The vast resources of Bengal helped the British to organise a strong army and with its
help conquer the rest of the country. The victory of Plassey enabled the English Company
and its servants to acquire a lot of wealth at the cost of the helpless people of Bengal. In
the words of Watson, the battle of Plassey was of “extra-ordinary importance not only to
the Company but to the British nation in general”. This battle demonstrated the utterly
corrupt political life in Bengal.
Mir Jafar (1757-1760)
Mir Jafar was the Nawab of Bengal from 1757 to 1760. He was neither brilliant nor
active and had not the capacity to carry on the administration of Bengal. Throughout the
period, he was merely a figure-head and the real power was in the hands of Clive. He was
surrounded by difficulties on all sides. He had no money in the treasury. He had not
enough money to meet even his previous commitments. The English Company agreed
that one-half of the amount should be paid by 31 October 1757 and the “remainder to be
paid within the compass of three years by equal payment every six months.” The
members of the Calcutta Council got huge amounts. Mir Jafar was so worried by the
problem of finance that he had no money to pay even his own soldiers and some of them
mutinied. He expressed his inability to pay the instalments to the English Company. Mir
Jafar had to meet the danger from the Dutch who were jealous of British influence in
Bengal. In 1759, six or seven dutch vessels with 300 European and 600 Malayan soldiers
appeared in the Ganges. They were defeated at Bidderra by Colonel Forde, and their
vessels were captured. After the battle of Bidderra, the Duch were not able to make any
headway in India. Their existence in India was dependent on the goodwill of the English.

41
The treasury of Mir Jafar was empty and he had no money to pay either to the English
Company or bribes to the servants of the Company. The result was that in October 1760,
Mir Jafar was forced to abdicate in favour of his son-in-law, Mir Kasim.
Mir Kasim (1760-1763)
Mir Kasim made a good beginning. He suppressed the rebellious Zamindars of Bengal
and Bihar, forced the old officiers to give up the money they had mis-appropriated, levied
some Abwabs or additional cesses, tried to organise his army on the European model
made arrangements for the manufacture of fire-locks and guns at Monghyr and
transferred his capital from Murshidabad to Monghyr. After shifting his capital, he
seriously took up the subject of private inland trade of the servants of the English
Company. The servants of the English Company were doing havoc. They oppressed and
ill-treated the officials of the Nawab and the poor people of Bengal. They forced the
Indian officials and Zamindars to give them presents and bribes and compelled the Indian
artisans peasants, and merchants to sell their goods cheap and to buy dear from them.
Those who refused to do so were flogged or imprisoned. These years have been described
as “the period of open and unashamed plunder”. The fact is that prosperity of Bengal was
destroyed.
What Mir Kasim did was that he abolished all duties on internal trade and gave his own
subjects the same concessions which the Englishmen were already enjoying through
sheer force. This was too much for the Englishmen to tolerate and they demanded the re-
imposition of duties on Indian traders. Mir Kasim believed that he was an independent
ruler but the Englisman wanted him to act as a mere puppet in their hands as they alone
had put him on the throne. This was bound to result in a clash between Mir. Kasim and
the English Company. In June 1763, Major Adams was sent to fight against Mir Kasim.
Many battles were fought with the troops of the Nawab and most important of them were
those at Katwah, Giria, Suti and Udaynala. Mir Kasim fled to Avadh where he formed an
alliance with Shuja-ud-daulah the Nawab of Avadh, and Shah Alam, the Mughal
Emperor. The combined armies of Mir Kasim, Shah Alam and Shuja-ud-daulah were
defeated at Buxar on 22 October 1764. It was one of the most decisive battles of Indian
History and demonstrated the superiority of English arms over the Indian rulers. It
established the control of the British over Bengal, Bihar and Orissa and placed Avadh at
their mercy. The view of Sir J.M. Stephen is that the battle of Buxar deserves far more
credit than the hattle of Plassey as the origin of the British power in India. It was a
fiercely contested battle in which the English lost 847 men and they killed about 2000
men of the enemy. It was not merely the Nawab of Bengal but also the Mughal Emperor
and his titular Prime Minister, Nawab Wazir of Avadh, who were defeated. If the battle of
Plassey enabled the English Company to put a puppet on the throne of Bengal, the battle
of Buxar did much more. It gave the English an opportunity to bring under their control

42
the North-Western frontier of the Subah. Ramsay Muir writes, “Buxar finally riveted the
shackles of Company’s rule upon Bengal”.
After the overthrow of Mir Kasim, Mir Jafar was made the Nawab of Bengal for the
second time and he occupied that position from July 1763 to February 1765. When he
died in 1765, the Calcutta Council put his second son named Nijam-ud-daulah on the
throne of Bengal. All power passed into the hands of English Company. Clive set up the
Dual Government in Bengal by which all real power came into the hands of the English
Company although the authority was nominally exercised in the name of the Nawab. The
Dual Government was abolished in 1772 and thus the British became the complete
masters of Bengal.
The Marathas
The Marathas were the most formidable rivals of the English Company in India. On the
ruins of the Mughal empire, the Marathas built up their Empire in India. For some time,
the Marathas and the English operated in their spheres. Towards the last quarter of the
18th century, both the Marathas and the English clashed frequently and ultimately the
English Company was able to crush the power of the Marathas.
The First Maratha War was fought between 1778 and 1782. The struggle for succession
in the house of the Peshwa gave the English Company an opportunity to interfere in the
affairs of the Marathas. Peshwa Madhav Rao died in 1772. Narayan Rao who succeeded
him, was murdered in cold blood on 30 August 1773 at the instigation of Raghoba or
Raghunath Rao who was another claimant to the office of the Peshwa. The birth of a
posthumous son to Narayan Rao wove Raghunath Rao to the point of desperation and he
signed with the Bombay government the Treaty of Surat on 7 March 1775, thereby
hoping to become Peshwa with the help of British coops. Raghoba agreed to give to the
Government of Bombay Salsette and Bassein as the price Tor British help. All this was
done without the knowledge of Warren Hastings. The British slacked Salsette and
defeated the Marathas. Warren hastings did not approve of the Treaty of Surat and
entered into the Treaty of Purandar in 1776. By this treaty, all places including Bassein
were to be restored to the Peshwa. The Island of Salsette and the small ones near Bombay
were to remain in the possession of the British. The city of Broach was also to remain
with the British. The territory conquered in Gujarat by the British was to be restored to
the Marathas. The British were not to give support to Raghoba who was to be paid
Rs. 25,000 for his maintenance. The Directors of the English Company approved of the
Treaty of the Surat and war had to be continued. The British were defeated and they had
to conclude the Convention of Wadgaon by which they promised to surrender Raghoba
and restore all acquisitions made by them. Warren Hastings refused to ratify the
Convention of Wadgaon and continued the war Goddard marched from Bengal to Surat.
He captured Ahmedabad and made an alliance with the Gaikwad of Baroda. He was
defeated when he advanced towards Poona, and Major Podham captured Gwalior, capital

43
of Sindhia. A confederacy was made against the British but Warren Hastings was able to
bribe the Raja of Nagpur and make peace with Sindhia. Ultimately, the treaty of Salbai
was signed on 17 May 1782. By this treaty, the fort of Thana with the Island of Salsette
was to remain in British possession. Rs. 12 lakhs were to be paid to the British for the
expenses incurred by them on account of Raghoba who was to receive an allowance of
more than Rs. 3 lakhs for the maintenance. He was to withdraw himself completely from
the affairs of the State. The British were to retain the territory conquered by them in
Gujarat but they were not to interfere into the affairs of Gaikwad. The view of V.A.
Smith is that the Treaty of Salbai was one of the great landmarks in the history of India. It
was a stroke of diplomacy which was invaluable to Warren Hastings in Southern wars.
The view of Keene is that it was by means of this treaty that without annexing a square
mile of territory, the British power become virtually paramount in the greater part of the
Indian Peninsula. Dr. Shanti Prasad Varma does not accept the view of Keene who
according to him unduly exaggerated the effect of this treaty on the future of British
Empire in India. The view of Dr. Sailendra Nath Sen, is that the Treaty of Salbai marked
the ascendancy of the English as the controlling, although not yet the paramount
government in India.
The Second Maratha War was fought from 1802 to 1805. In March 1800, Nana
Phandnavis died and with him departed “all the wisdom and moderation of the Maratha
Government”. Both Sindhia and Holkar tried to establish their control over the Peshwa.
The Peshwa submitted to the control of Sindhia but Holkar would not tolerate that. He
attached and defeated Sindhia and tried to establish his control over of the Peshwa. For a
long time, the Peshwa had refused to accept the subsidiary alliance with the English
Company but in his helpless condition, he asked for British protection from Lord
Wellesley. He accepted the subsidiary alliance and signed the treaty of Bassein on 31
December 1802. By this treaty, a subsidiary force consisting ‘of not less than 6000
regular infantry with the usual proportion of field artillery and European artillerymen
“was to be stationed within the territory of the Peshwa. For the maintenance of the
subsidiary force, the Peshwa surrendered territories yielding revenues worth Rs. 26 lakhs.
The Peshwa agreed not to entertain any European hostile to the British and subjected his
relations with other states to the control of English. The Peshwa was restored to his
former position on 13 May 1803 with British help. The Maratha chiefs were indignant
over the action of the Peshwa. Sindhia and Bhonsla at once combined and attacked but
they met stiff resistance at the hands of the British troops. Arthur Wellesley captured
Ahmednagar on 12 August 1803. On 23 September 1803, he won a complete victory over
Sindhia and Bhonsla at Assaye. Burhampur was captured by the British on 15 October
1803 and Asirgarh on 21 October 1803. On 29 November 1803, Bohnsla was defeated at
Aragaon. On 15 December 1803, the fortress of Gawilgarh was captured. General Lake
captured Delhi and Agra. In Septemer 1803, the army of Sindhia was defeated in the
battle of Delhi. He was again defeated in November 1803, at Laswari. Within a period of

44
5 months, both Sindhia and Bhonsla were defeated. Bhonsla made the treaty of ‘Deogaon
on 17 December 1803 by which he agreed to give to the British the province of Cuttack,
including Balasore and the whole of his territory west of the river Warda. Bhonsla agreed
to have a British Resident at Nagpur.
On 30 December 1803, Sindhia made the treaty of Surji Arjangaon by which he gave to
the British all his territories between the Ganges and the Jamuna and his forts and
territories to the north of the Rajput states of Jaipur, Jodhpur and Gohad. He gave to the
British Ahmednagar, Broach and all his territories west of the Ajanta hills. He gave up all
his claims on the Mughal Emperor, the Peshwa, the Nizam and the British. He agreed not
to have in his state any European without the consent of the British Government. By
another Treaty signed on 20 February 1804 he entered into a subsidiary alliance by which
a subsidiary force of 6,000 infantry was to be stationed near his frontier.
Holkar had his differences with Sindhia and had not joined hands with him to fight
against the British. However, when Sindhia and Bhonsla were defeated, Holkar decided
to continue the fight. He attacked the territories of the Rajputs and demanded Chauth
from the English Company. Lord Wellesley rejected these demands and war was
declared. Holkar forced Colonel Monson to retreat and inflicted upon him a crushing
defeat. Raja of Bharatpur defied British authority and joined Holkar in an attack on Delhi
but their attempts failed. Later on, Holkar himself was defeated. The efforts of General
Lake to conquer Bharatpur failed and he suffered heavy losses. General Lake made peace
with Raja of Bharatpur. When such was the situation, Lord Wellesley was called back by
the Home Government which was tired of his aggressive wars.
His successor, Lord Cornwallis, tried to end the hostilities with Holkar and pacify
Sindhia. He decided to restore Gwalior and Gohand to Sindhia and withdraw the
protection of the English Company from the Rajput states. However, Cornwallis could
not carry out his policy as he died in Octoer 1805. Sir George Barlow, his successor,
carried out the policy of his predecessor. Gwalior and Gohand were restored to Sindhia.
The English Company pledged itself to enter into treaties with the chiefs of Rajputana.
The treaty with Holkar was made on 7 January 1806 by which he gave up all his claims to
Tonk, Rampur, Bundi, Koch, Bundelkhand and places north of the Chambal. Holkar got
back a greater part of his lost territories.
Third Maratha War (1817-18)
Although the Peshwa had entered into the Treaty of Bassein in 1802, he has not satisfied
with his present position and was intriguing to free himself from the British control. The
English Company took prompt measures to check the designs of the Peshwa. Baji Rao
Peshwa was persuaded to sign reluctantly the Treaty of Poona on 13 June 1817 by which
he gave up the headship of the Maratha confederacy. He promised not to make demands
on Gaikwad. He agreed to surrender to the English Company the Konkan and some
important strongholds. On 5 November 1817, Sindhia was forced to sign the Treaty of

45
Gwalior by which he agreed to cooperate with the English Company to suppress the
Pindaris. The English Company was allowed to enter into treaties with the Rajput states.
The Treaty of Nagpur was signed with Bhonsla on 27 May 1816.
Peshwa Baji Rao II was not satisfied with his position and he revolted and burnt the
British Residency at Poona. However, he was completely defeated. Apa Sahib Bhonsla of
Nagpur and Holkar declared war against the British. Apa Sahib was defeated at Sitabaldi
on 27 November 1817. Holkar was defeated at Mahidpur on 21 December 1817 and was
forced to sign the Treaty of Mandasor on 6 January 1818 by which he gave up all claims
on the Rajput States. He surrendered to the English Company all districts south of the
Narmada. he agreed to maintain a subsidiary force within his territory. He submitted his
foreign relations to the arbitration of English Company. He agreed to have a permanent
British Resident at Indore.
After his defeat at Khirki, the Peshwa fought two more battles: one at Koregaon on I
January 1818 and the second at Asti on 20 February 1818. He was not only defeated but
he surrendered himself to Sir John Malcolm on 3 June 1818. The office of the Peshwa
was abolished but Baji Rao II was given a pension of Rs. 9 lakhs a year for his life. A
representative of the line of Shivaji was put on the throne of Satara. Apa Sahib of Nagpur
was deposed and a new Raja was put in his place. The Narmada territories of Bhonsla
were annexed. The power of the Marathas was completely crushed and they were not in a
position to raise their head again. They were at the mercy of the British power. The
Rajput states had been dominated for several decades by Sindhia and Holkar. After the
downfall of the Marathas, they lacked the energy to reassert their independence and
accepted British supremacy.
The result was that by 1818, the entire Indian subcontinant excepting the Punjab and
Sindh had been brought under British Control. A part of it was directly ruled by the
British and the rest by a large number of Indian rulers over whom the British Government
exercised paramount power. These states had virtually no forces of their own They paid
heavily for the British forces stationed in their territories to control them. They practically
enjoyed no freedom.
Conquest of Sindh (1843)
Sindh was ruled by a number of Amirs who had originally come from Baluchistan. The
important Amirs or Chiefs were at Khairpur, Hyderabad and Mirpur. The Amir of
Khairpur claimed suzerainty over the other Amirs. In 1809, the English Company entered
into a treaty with the Amirs of Sindh by which the latter undertook not to allow any
settlement of the French in Sindh. In 1831, Burnes went on a mission to Lahore and he
passed through the river Indus. In the same year, Maharaja Ranjit Singh suggested to
William Bentinck the partition of Sindh but the suggestion was not accepted. The English
Company forced the Amir of Hyderabad to enter into a treaty in April 1832 by which
certain privileges were granted to the English Company. Maharaja Ranjit Singh was

46
anxious to conquer Sindh but the British Government refused to allow him to do so. As a
matter of fact, the British government took the Amirs under its own protection. Lord
Auckland forced the Amirs of Sindh in 1838 to have a British Resident at Hyderabad.
During the First Afghan war, the British Government sent its troops through Sindh. The
Amirs were asked to pay a large sum of money in commutation of the claim of Shan
Shuja for tribute. They protested but paid. They were threatened and forced to enter into a
new treaty in February 1839. Even that treaty was arbitrarily revised by Auckland in
favour of the English Company and sent back to the Amirs for their signatures. The latter
"objected, implored and finally gave way by affixing their seals to the revised
documents”. During the First Afgahn War, Sindh was made the base of operations. The
Amirs could have done mischief at this critical movement but they were absolutely loyal
to the English Company. Inspite of that, charges of disaffection were leveled against them
by the Government of India. Sir Charles Napier was made the new British Resident at
Hyderabad and he was put in supreme control of military and political matters. He
wanted to find an excuse to annex Sindu and the disputed succession at Khairpur
provided the necessary opportunity. Without caring for the merits of the claims of the
various parties, Napier decided in favour of Ali Murad. He also declared that charges
against the Amirs were proved to be correct. He tried to impose fresh treaties on the
Amirs and those treaties were sent to them for ratification in December 1842. The Amirs
were asked to accept those treaties by 20 January 1843, but even before that Napier
attacked and destroyed the fortress of Imangarha fortress lying half-way between
Khairpur and Hyderabad. When the meeting at Khairpur took place, the Amirs of Lower
Sindh were present and those of Upper Sindh' were delayed by the machinations of Ali
Murad. Two days later, the Amirs of Upper Sindh reached Khairpur with their seals to be
affixed to the treaty. Napier refused them permission and ordered them to go back to
Hyderabad. Napier himself started towards Hyderabad. It is contended that if Napier had
stayed his march towards Hyderabad, the treaties would have been signed and war
averted. The high-handedness of Napier excited the war-like Bluchis to attack the
residence of Outram on 15 February 1843. Outram managed to escape and a regular war
started. The important battles were fought at Miani and Doba in February and March
1843 respectively. On 27 March 1843, Napier occupied Mirpur. Sindh was annexed in
August 1843. The Amirs were exiled. Napier got £ 70,000 as his share of the booty.
The conquest and annexation of Sindh has been universally condemned. The Directors of
the English East India Company did not approve of it although they had not courage to
restore Sindh to the Amirs of Sindh who had been absolutely loyal throughout. According
to Innes, “If the Afghan episode is the most disastrous in our Indian annals, that of Sindh
is morally even less excusable.” Sir Charles Napier himself wrote thus in his diary : “We
have no right to seize Sindh, : yet we shall do so and a very advantageous, useful, humane
piece of rascality it will be.” The conquest of Sindh was in every respect the aftermath of
the Afghan disaster. According to Elphinstone, “Coming after Afghanistan, it put one in

47
mind of a bully who had been kicked in the streets and went home to beat his wife in
revenge, it was the tale of the Afghan storm.” The view of Ramsay Muir is that “Sindh is
the only British acquisition in India of which it may fairly be said that it was not
necessitated by circumstances and that it was, therefore, and act of aggression.”
According to P.E. Roberts, “The conquest of Sindh followed in the wake of the first
Afghan War and it was morally and politically its sequel.”
Annexation of Punjab
Maharaja Ranjit Singh continued to maintain friendly relations with the English
Company so long as he ruled the Punjab. He entered into the treaty of Amritsar with the
English Company in 1809 by which he accepted the river Satluj as the boundary line
between his territory and that of the Company. Though there were numerous occasions
when Maharaja Ranjit Singh and the English faced threats of armed clashes, Ranjit Singh
always resisted the temptation of a war against the English Company. He had a feeling
that after his death the Punjab would be annexed to the British Empire.
Maharaja Ranjit Singh died in 1839 and there was complete political instability in the
Punjab. Ranjit Singh was succeeded by his eldest son known as Kharak Singh and Dhian
Singh became his Wazir. He was opposed to Sher Singh, another son of Ranjit Singh, and
Nao Nihal Singh, his own son. Chet Singh, a favorite of Kharak Singh, was murdered,
Kharak Singh himself died in November 1840. His son Nao Nihal Singh was also killed
by the fall of a gateway in the Lohore fort. In January 1841, Sher Singh usurped power
and proclaimed himself as Maharaja. It was during his reign that English troops and
convoys were allowed to pass through the Punjab on their way to Kabul to participate in
the First Afgan War. In June 1842, Chand Kaur was murdered. In September 1843, Sher
Singh was murdered. Dhian Singh was also disposed off: Hira Singh, son of Dhian Singh
made up his mind to have revenge for the death of his father. He put Dalip Singh, a
minor, on the throne and himself became the Wazir. Rani Jindan, mother of Dalip Singh
and widow of Maharaja Ranjit Singh, became Regent. Throughout this period, it was
suspected that the English had their hands in the anarchy prevailing in the Punjab. In
December 1844, Hira Singh was murdered. Power fell into the hands of Jawahar Singh
and Lal Singh. In September 1845, Jawahar Singh was shot dead and Lal Singh became
the Wazir.
There were indications of British intentions. The strength of the English Company's army
in the Punjab was increased to 32,000 with 68 guns and an additional reserve force of
10,000 men was being kept at Meerut. 57 boats were brought from Bombay for
assembling a bridge of boats over Satluj and Commander was giving training to his
soldiers in bridge throwing. The troops of the English Company in Sindh were well
equipped and kept in readiness for a possible march on Multan. On the top of it, came the
declaration of Major Broadfoot that the Cis-Satluj possessions of the Lahore Durbar were
liable to escheat on the death or deposition of Maharaja Dalip Singh. The contention of

48
the English Company that these preparations were of a defensive nature and calculated to
meet possible eventualities of an attack from the Sikhs, was hypocriti cal, considering the
state of affairs in the Punjab. The British moves and preparations seemed to denote to the
Sikh arms "a campaign, not of defence but of aggression and it decided that if the English
wanted war, they would have it on their own territory”. The Sikhs troops crossed the river
Satluj between Hariki and Kasur on 11 Dec. 1845 and took the offensive. Four battles
fought at Mudki, Ferozshah, Budewal and Aliwal could not decide the issue. The final
battle was fought at Sobraon on 10 February 1845 and due to the treachery of Lal Singh
and Teja Singh, the Sikhs lost the war. The English dictated peace on 9 March 1846
whereby the Lahore durbar ceded the territory between the rivers Beas and Satluj apart
form all the forts and territories in the hill countries between the rivers Beas and Indus
including provinces of Kashmir and Hazara. The English obtained a huge war indemnity
and limited the military strength of the Sikh Army. The English did not annex the Punjab
though they financially crippled it, militarily enfeebled it and territorially reduced it in
size. Punjab lost its independence, though in name it was allowed to exist.
On 16 December 1846, another treaty known as the Treaty of Bhairowal was made by the
British Government with the Lahore Durbar. By this Treaty, a council of Regency
consisting of 8 pro-British Sikh chiefs was appointed but it was to act under the advice
and guidance of the British Resident. A British force was to be maintained at Lahore and
the Sikhs were to pay Rs.22 lakhs every year. This arrangement was to continue upto
1854 when Maharaja Dalip Singh was expected to become major. By this treaty, the
English became virtually the masters of the Punjab.
Second Sikh War (1848-1849)
There was no doubt that the discontentment prevailing in the Punjab would have resulted
in a war sooner or later, but the revolt of Mulraj. Governor of Multan, precipitated
matters Mulraj was the Governor of Multan since 1844. Before that, his father Sawan Mal
was the Governor of Multan. Mulraj was asked by the Lahore Durbar to pay the
succession duty of Rs. 1 crore. He expressed his inability and was asked to pay Rs. 18
Lakhs. Money was not demanded and paid on account of the intervention of the First
Sikh War. He was asked to pay Rs. 19 lakh. As the payment was not made by him, he
was ordered to pay Rs. 20 lakh and give up one-third of his territory. His annual tribute of
Rs. 12 lakhs was increased to Rs. 18 lakh. The Lahore Durbar tried to interfere in the
internal affairs of Multan. Mulraj offered to resign on the condition that no action was
taken against him but the offer was rejected. The British Resident sent Anderson and
Agnew with Sardar Kahn Singh to take over the administration. Mulraj handed over the
Multan fort to them on 19 April 1846. The people of Multan got infuriated at the sight of
Englishmen. There was a revolt on 20 April 1848 and the two British officers were
murdered.

49
In December 1848, the siege of Multan was started and it surrendered in January 1849.
On 13 January 1849 was fought the battle of Chillianwala. It was a drawn battle. In
February 1849 was fought the battle of Gujarat which had been called the “battle of
guns”. The Sikhs were defeated and the war ended on 13 March 1849. On 29 March
1849, the Punjab was annexed. Maharaja Dalip Singh was deposed and given a pension.
The annexation of the Punjab by Lord Dalhousie has been universally condemned by
many writers. The view of Trotter is that the policy of Dalhousie was "unprincipled and
unjustifiable.” It was a dirty plan "deliberately adopted by the Resident and the Governer
General contrary to the advice of the Council of Regency,” Bell says that the annexation
of the Punjab was “a violent breach of trust.” Dalhousie" violated treaties, abused a
sacred trust, threw away the grandest opportunity ever offered to the British Government
of planting solid and vital reform upto the northern limits of India, and by an acquisition
as unjust as it was imprudent, weakened our frontier, scattered our military strength and
entailed a heavy financial burden upon the empire, That, I believe, will be the verdict of
postirity and history upon the transaction which has just passed under our review”. Bell
further says that the annexation of the Punjab could have been avoided. To quote him, “I
can perceive no advantage, material or moral, that has been gained by any person or class
that could not have been more fully and effectually conferred and secured without
annexation than with it.” Dalhousie defended his action in these words, “However
contrary it may be to our past views and to our present views, annexation of the Punjab is
the most advantageous policy for us to pursue. I firmly believe we shall not succeed in
establishing a friendly Sikh power.”
Conquest of Lower Burma
It was during the Governor-Generalship of Lord Amherst (1823-28) that the First
Burmese War was fought in 1824-26. A treaty was signed between the Government of
India and Burma. This treaty is known as the Treaty of Yandaboo. By this treaty the king
of Burma agreed to give to the English Company the provinces of Arakan and
Tenasserim. Burmese forces were to be withdrawn from Assam and Cachar. They
recognised the independence of Manipur and entered into a commercial treaty. They also
agreed to take a British Resident at their capital and pay a war indemnity of one million
pounds.
The second Burmese war was fought in 1852 in the time of Lord Dalhousie (1848-56).
The real cause of the second Burmese war was the determination of Dalhousie to exclude
all European powers from Burma. The English merchants also had their grievances with
regard to the trade concessions given by the treaty of Yandaboo. Lord Dalhousie declared
war against Burma. Even before the declaration of war, a British force was sent under
General Godwin. Martaban was taken. Rangoon and Bassein also fell into the hands of
the English. Later on, Prome was occupied. Thus, the British were able to bring the whole

50
of Lower Burma under their control. As no treaty was signed, Lord Dalhousie declared
the annexation of Pegu by a proclamation issued in 1852.
Sikkim
In 1850 Lord Dalhousie charged the Raja of Sikkim with the offence of malterating and
imprisoning two English doctors. Sikkim had to surrender some outlying districts of the
state including Darjeeling to the English.
Dalhousie and Doctrine of Lapse
Dalhousie annexed a large number of Indian states by the application of the doctrine of
lapse. His contention was that “the British Government in the exercise of a wise and
sound policy is bound not to put aside or neglect such rightful apportunities of acquiring
territary or revenue as may from time to time present themselves, whether they arise from
the lapse of subordinate states by the failure of all heirs of every description whatsoever
or from the failure of heirs natural where the succession can be sustained only by the
sanction of the Government being given to the ceremony of adoption, according to Hindu
Law”. In this way, Dalhousie annexed Satara in 1848, Jaitpur and Sambalpur in 1849,
Baghat in 1850, Udaipur in 1852, Jhansi in 1853 and Nagpur in 1854. Although Avadh
had always been loyal to the English Company, it was annexed in 1856.
It was in this way that by 1856, the territorial map of British India underwent drastic
changes. Much of it had become red. The annexation of the Punjab pushed the dominion
of the English Company to the hills in the North-West. The annexation of Sikkim
territory brought Indian boundaries contiguous too Tibet and the Chinese Empire. The
acquisition of Lower Burma extended British authority along the coast from Chittagong
to Rangoon. By the application of the doctorine of lapse and annexation of a number of
Indian states on one excuse or the other, Lord Dalhousie brought directly under the
control of the English Company large territories. Thus, within a century of the battle of
Plassey practically the whole of India passed under British control.

51
 BRITISH RELATIONS WITH THE INDIAN STATES
(1756-1857)

Introduction
The British relations with the “Native Indian States" is a topic of abiding interest for the
students of Modern Indian Histroy. Many of these states rose into prominence during the
middle of the eighteenth century when the Mughal Empire was fast distintegrating. The
Battle of Plassey (1757) ushered an era of British imperial expansion. The political map
of India was being rapidly changed. By the middle of the next century, the stranglehold of
British paramountcy had virtually encompassed all the Indian States. The change in the
status of the Indian States “was partly by force of circumstances and partly by the
pressure of irresistible currents of history, and the policy towards them was evolved
partly by the official character of the East India Company, partly by the views of the
Governors-General, but mainly by the conviction which developed with Wellesely and
continued upto our own time, that the Government of the whole of India directly or
indirectly by the British is a part of apreordained system.”1
Lee Warner, in his scholarly study of the phase of British rule in India, has noticed three
well-marked periods, viz, the “ring-fence” from 1756 to 1813, “subordinate isolation”
from 1813 to 1857, and “subrodiante union" after 1858. In this lesson, we will be mainly
concerned with the first two-periods. Though each period is characterised by some
pecuilar traits, it will be wrong to assume that there were no exceptions to the board
pattern indicated above. Lee Warner's classification only provides us with a convenient
framework which will enable you to have a better understanding of the problem of the
relations of the British Government with the Indian States. The British policy towards the
Indian States, as neatly pointed out by Panikkar, was not necessarily the result of any
preconceived notions except that the British rule must, ere long, extend its sway over the
whole of India.

POLICY OF “RING-FENCE” (1756-1813)

In broad terms, the keynote of the policy of the English East India Company during the
"ring fence" period (1756-1813) was non-intervention and limited liability. Thus, while
the frontiers of the neighbouring Indian States were guarded by way of precaution, the
Company generally tried to refrain from interfering in the internal affairs of these States.
The adoption of such a policy lay in the logic of history. Faced with a strong Maratha
revival and a militant Mysore, the Company had possibly no other choice. Thus the
kingdom of Carnatic was maintained as a buffer to Mysore whereas Oudh was preserved
to serve the same objective against the Marathas out of sheer political necessity. It should

1
1. Panikkar: Evolution of British Policy towards Indian States, Introduction, p. xi.

52
be noted, however, that the policy of non-intervention was not strictly followed since it
was not based on any firm conviction about its efficacy or morality. It was essentially a
stop-gap arrangement which could be modified, or even reversed, according to whims of
the Governor-General. Thus even Warren Hastings (1772-85), who may virtually be
regarded as the originator of the “ring-fence” policy did not strictly pursue a policy of
non-intervention. His demands on Chait Singh of Banaras and the Begums of Oudh and
his conduct towards the Rohillas and Faizullah Khan of Rampur were cases of blatant
interference in the affairs of these independent States. Similarly, a seemingly pacifist like
Cornwallis (1786-93) felt no scruples in attacking Tipu Sultan and annexing half of his
kingdom.
It is no doubt true that all the treaties of this period excepting those with Mysore, were
pegotiated on a basis of equality and the Company did not explicitly claim any
paramountcy or imperial authourity. Thus when the Triple Alliance (1790) against Tipu
took shape, the contracting parties agreed to give due attention of the wishes and the
convenience of the parties" as regards the distribution of acquisitions and agreed to take
all the decisions by mutual consent. In addition, each of the treaties guaranteed in a most
absolute manner the authority of the ruler over his subjects and repudiated any intention
to intervence in the internal affairs of the State. The Company, however, managed to
intervene in many ways. Sometimes these means were dubious, sometimes subtle and in
certain cases this intervention was outrageously high-handed. Some of the states like
Oudh, the Carnatic and Tanjore, being dependent on the company for self-protection,
were not in a position to oppose when the Company dictated terms to them. Thus the
“Subsidiary Treaties” of Wellesley (1798-1805), which established British predominance
over some of the states-merely formalised and systematised a practice that had been
growing for the last two decades. The apologists of Wellesely have sought to justify his
expansionist policy. Here is one typical justification. Ramsay Muir feels that “the British
power in India in the midst of States which were in a perpetual unrest, must fight in self-
defence if not in aggression, and found that it was faced with the alternative of expansion
or destruction.” Another justification often trotted out is that the policy of non-
intervention followed by Sir John Shore (1793-98) went a long way in tilting the balance
of power against the Company. Wellesely himself, however, needed no justification for
his actions. He was convinced that if the Company was to rule India, it must rule as the
sole paramount power. He did his job in such a methodical fashion that within four years
of his landing, Tipu bad been defeated and killed, half of his territory was under British
administration and the remainder restored to the old Hindu dynasty. The shrunken
Mysore thus was brought under the effective protectorate of the Comapny. The Nizam
was made to accept a treaty which made him a British vassal, the whole of Carnatic had
been brought under direct British rule and the company had become the paramount power
in South India. The formidable Maratha Confederacy had also been badly shaken up and
English protectorate was imposed on some of its principal members. Thus before the

53
close of the first period of their intercourse with the Indian States, the Company had
advanced from the position of “primus inter pares” to that of the paramountauthority.
Various methods used by Wellesely to extend British hegemony over Indian States
For the sake of conscience, we can classify three methods by which Wellesely made his
acquisitions. Firstly, he took advantage of his military victories over Tipu Sultan, Sindhia
and the Raja of Berar to acquire some of the districts from their kingdoms. Secondly,
through a process popularly known as “mediatization”, Wellesley often took over the
whole administration of a state, leaving to the ruler only his titles and royal status with a
fixed revenue. Wellesley seized every opportunity presented by a change in the line of
succession to carry through this policy of “mediatization” in Tanjore, Surat and the
Carnatic.
The last and the most effective method used by him was the Subsidiary Alliance System
by which the Indian States on certain conditions subsidized British force for their own
defence. Roberts, in his mastery analysis of Wellesley’s career, has noted four distinct
stages in the development of Subsidiary Alliance System which are detailed thus: (1) The
first and the most rudimentary form of Subsidiary Alliance made it obligatory for the
British to provide their ally with certain forces, but only when specifically asked to do so
and not otherwise (e.g., the treaty with the Nizam in 1768). (2) Under the second form,
the subsidiary forces were permanently maintained close to the frontiers of the ally and
maintained at the ally's expense. This was, however, must uncommon. (3) In the third
form, the subsidised army was not only permanently maintained, but was stationed within
the ally’s territory (4) In the last form (this can be regarded as the distinctive contribution
of (Wellesley), the protected rulers had to cede a part of their territory for the unkeep of
the subsidiary forces, instead of paying a certain yearly sum from the general revenue.
This was the final and most developed kind of subsidiary alliance and was exemplified in
the treaty with Oudh of 1801. There were other important provisions in the Subsidiary
Alliance Treaties. The allies were not permitted to negotiate with other Indian and foreign
powers and could not enlist the service of any European without the sanction of the
Company. Though the Company disclaimed any intention to interfere in the internal
affairs of these protected States, it is nevertheless a fact that all these states had to put up
with a British Resident who seized every possible opportunity to further undermine the
status of these states. As Roberts has frankly admitted, the Subsidiary Alliance was “a
political snare to entrap the Indian princes and rob them of their independence”.
Now let us deal with the merits and demerits of the fully developed form of the
Subsidiary Alliance System.
Its Merits: This system was immensely advantageous to the British. The supposed French
menace was successfully offset since the native rulers were no longer in a position to
negotiate with them. It also enabled the Company to extend its military frontier far
beyond its political frontier. Since the allies of the Company had to maintain considerable

54
British armies on a war footing and ready for instant action, the evils of war", as Sir
Arthur Wellesley pointed out, were "kept at a distance from the sources of our wealth and
our power". These forces, for the maintenance of which the Company did not have to pay
anything, could be “directed against the principal states of India, without the hazard of
disturbing the tranquility of the Company’s possessions, and without requiring any
considerable increase to the permanent military expenses of the Government of India”.
Thus, to sum up, the Company’s military frontier was shifted to the political frontier of its
allies, and the costs of the British army were largely borne by the Native States.
Wellesley’s much-vaunted claim that the system enabled the British Government “to
preserve the general control over the restless spirit of ambition and violence which is
characteristic of every Asiatic Government” can be dismissed as the arrogance of an
imperialist who was conscious of the superiority of its military right.
Its Demerits: A further analysis would, however, show that the demerits of the system far
outweighed its merits. The subsidy demanded from the Indian States was so much
disproportionate to their revenues that even Arthur Wellesley had to admit that the
subsidy claimed from the Nawab of Carnatic "bore so large a proportion to the revenues
which the country could afford that it was scarcely possible to realise". Thus the system
tended to bring about the internal decay or the Protected State. By making the
administration, defence, and foreign policy of these Indian States subservient to the
British interest, the Subsidiary Alliance System extinguished those qualities of leadership
and administrative efficiency which are generally associated with the ruling classes. The
protected rulers, no longer worried about external danger, tended to become irresponsible
to the real interests of their people. This encouraged habits of ease and luxury. Along
with the heavy demands of the Company, the financial resources of many of these states
were considerably strained. As the salaries and other pre-requisites paid to the subsidiary
forces were much higher, there was hardly any ruler, who as a consequence of this
additional financial load, do not fall into arrears with regard to the payment of the
subsidy. The Shylockean attitude of the Company compelled the rulers to tax the
peasantry heavily. As Munro has succinctly observed: “Wherever the Subsidiary System
is introduced, unless the reigning monarch be a man of great abilities, the country will
soon bear the marks of it in decaying villages and decreasing population”. The Company
did nothing to alleviate the situation which was largely their creation. Misgovernment in
the Protected States was the order of the day and this provided a convenient excuse to
Wellesley to demand territorial cession in lieu of cash subsidy and he thereby gave the
Subsidiary Alliance its final shape. A very unwholesome development resulted from this
system which by creating a system of divided responsibility within the Protected States
paved the way for maladministration which was seized as a legitimate pretext by the
Company to ultimately annex these territories, as was done by Lord Dalhousie on a very
extensive scale. Thus the Subsidiary Alliance System was a shrewd but sinister design to
extinguish the autonomy of the Indian States.

55
 SUBORDINATE ISOLATION (1813-1857)
The policy of the “ring-fence”, which necessitated the refusal of protection to Indian
States lying beyond a certain limit met its demise at the hands of Lord Hastings (1813-
1823). He deliberately abandoned the policy of the “ring-fence” and littered the political
map of India with many Protected States which were subordinate to the Company. This
change came in 1818 with the crushing of the Pindaris and the Marathas. In the same
year, Central India was pacified and the Rajput States were admitted to the British
system. The states as a whole covered more than a third of the area of British India. The
balance of power had, by this time definitely tilted in favour of the British. The latter had
overcome their European opponents, and the Company's forces were prepared to crush
any Indian power. The Company hardly needed help from any Indian power. Taking
advantage of this political situation Lord Hastings reduced a number of Indian states to
subordinate status. This change in the status of states lately admitted to the British system
is clearly reflected in the treaties concluded by Lord Hastings. These treaties brought
about one more important change. The states were completely isolated from one another.
They could not have mutual political relations. If there were mutual disputes, those were
to be submitted to the Paramount Power for “arbitration and award”. The motive behind
the treaties concluded by Lord Hastings was the establishment of British supremacy
rather than providing security to the Company.
Though the states were subordinate in their foreign relations, internally they were
récognised as sovereign, and there was as little interference as possible. In general the
grounds of interference were financial rather than administrative. Lord Hastings was not
for annexing Indian States to the British Empire.
Dalhousie (1848-1856) carried this policy many steps further. He strongly believed that
the extension of the British protectorate over the remaining states would enable them to
enjoy the blessings of the British Raj. In addition to this, he was convinced that the Indian
States had no justification whatsoever to exist. Consequently he seized every available
method and opportunity to absorb the Indian States in British Indian Empire.
Lord Dalhousie (1848-1856)
Dalhousie achieved this end by adopting three methods, viz., (a) skilful and systematic
application of the “Doctrine of Lapse”; (b) deposition of the rulers--the erstwhile allies of
the Company on the charge of misgovernment, and (c) by outright conquests. Under the
“Doctrine of Lapse”, Dalhousie claimed that on the failure of natural heirs, the
sovereignty of the dependent States, or of States created by the British, lapsed to the
paramount power. This meant that the traditional custom of adoption of a son on the
failure of a natural heir by a ruler which had the sanction of the scriptures and was
sanctified by practice for centuries in India was thrown into the dustbin. Lord Dalhousie
haughtily declared that the British Government “in the exercise of a wise and sound
policy is bound not to put aside or neglect such rightful opportunities of acquiring

56
territories or revenue as may from time to time present themselves, whether they arise
from the lapse of the Subordinate States by the failure of heirs natural where the
succession can be sustained only by the sanction of the Government being given to the
ceremony of adoption according to Hindu Law.” The distinction between “Independent”
and “Dependent” States was, as stated before, not very clear and this situation was very
shrewdly exploited by Dalhousie. For the sake of convenience, Dalhousie divided the
Indian States into three categories viz., (a) those “which are not tributary and which have
never been subordinate to a paramount power”, (b) those "which are tributary and which
owe subordination to the British Government as their paramount power in place of the
Emperor of Delhi, the Peshwa, etc.,” and (c) those “sovereignties and chieftainships
created or revived by the Sanad (grant) of the British Government”. It was Dalhousie’s
considered opinion that “adoption made properly in the first category ought as a matter of
course be recognised, in the second, we may or may not recognise, while in the third heirs
failing according to the terms of our grant, we annex.”
A shrewd and calculating man like Dalhousie must have realised that all these divisions
were ambiguous and ill-defined. No state in India of his time could be said to be
independent in the real sense of the term and the Doctrine of Lapse could be applied
equally to all of them. It is not very clear whether Dalhousie deliberately refrained from
clarifying the situation to the Court of Directors. It is nevertheless a fact that very often
the Home Authorities differed with the Governor-General on points of interpretation
regarding the status of many of Indian States. Thus Dalhousie's proposal for annexing the
Karauli State was disapproved by the Home Government on the ground that it was not a
Dependent State but a Protectedally. This however, did not deter the energetic Governor-
General from applying ruthlessly his pet Doctrine of Lapse to other States.
It would not be correct to assume that the policy of annexation by lapse was an
innovation of Dalhousie. As far back as 1834, the Court of Directors itself had suggested
to Lord Bentinck that, “wherever it is optional with you to give or withhold your consent
to adoptions, the indulgence should be that exception and not the rule and should never be
granted but as a special mark of approbation.” Dalhousie also went on to record that “on
all occasions where natural heirs shall fail the territory should be made to lapse and
adoption should not be permitted excepting in those cases in which some strong political
reasons may render it expedient to depart from this general rule”. Lee Warner’s plea, that
this observation was subsequently retraced by Dalhousie himself when the Governor-
General clearly stated that he did not intend to extinguish all those Hindu States whose
rulers died without any natural heir, does not hold water, judging from the ruthlessmanner
in which Dalhousie applied the Doctrine of Lapse. This policy of annexation by lapse was
only one of the implements in Dalhousie’s rich and varied armory of annexation. He
availed of every opportunity of annexing Indian States on this or that excuse. The
annexationist record of his predecessors served as a convenient excuse that the he was not
trying to do anything unusual. You will recall that almost all the preceding Governors-

57
General had added something to the expansion of the British Indian Empire. Here let us
mention the names of the Governors-General who succeeded Lord Hastings and the
territorial annexations made by them. Lord Amherst (1823-28) had intervened Bharatpur,
deported its ruler who was alleged to be plotting against the British. The administration of
Mysore was taken over by Lord William Bentuck (1828-36) on flimsy pretext. The
Kingdoms of Jaintia and Cachar in Assam, and Coorg near Mysore, were annexed-
outright. The Governor-General, Lord Auckland (1836-42) though mostly preoccupied
with First Afghan war, took advantage of the death of the ruler of Oudh in 1837 to
conclude a new treaty which made Oudh virtually an appendage of the British Empire in
India. He also annexed the territory of the Nawab of Karnool in Madras Presidency on the
facile pretext that the Nawab was contumacious. His successor, Lord Ellenbrough (1842-
44), high-handedly attacked Gwalior and replaced the ruling faction on the plea that it
was anti-British. Thus it can be easily seen that Dalhousie inherited an imperialistic and
annexationist tradition which he was happy to extend to the farthest limit because of his
strong imperial predilections.
In fact, as Innes suggests, “There was fully adequate precedent for everyone of
Dalhousie’s annexations. But his predecessors had acted on the general principle of
avoiding an annexation if it could be avoided; Dalhousie acted on the general principle of
annexing, if he could do so legitimately”. Historians have speculated upon the source of
his energy and the cause of his vigorous policy. One school of thought represents him as
a reformer who, in principle, believed that the old system of ruling India by means of
intermediate Native princes was archaic and outmoded. By another school he is regarded
to be the “passive instrument of destiny” in bringing about “a revolution necessary and
inevitable in itself”. There is yet another school of thought which maintains that
Dalhousie carried out changes in the Government of India which could no longer be
avoided and which would have been carried out notwithstanding who occupied the office
of the Governor-General. Dalhousie carried out those changes because he suffered from
the annexationist fever. He was deeply convinced of their justice and necessity.
Whatsoever may have been justification of his vigorous annexationist policy, the actual
result of his policy was catastrophic for the British Empire. It created justifiable suspicion
in the minds of the Indian rulers that their States were in danger of complete absorption
by the British and the feeling was certainly an important contributory cause for the great
explosion of 1857. In the fact Lord Dalhousie in his minute of 30th August, 1848
candidly admitted that “the extinction of nearly all the Indian States of India is just a
question of time”, confirmed and strengthened this suspicion.
States Annexed by the Doctrine of Lapse
The states annexed on the basis of the Doctrine of Lapse were Satara (1848), Jaipur,
Sambhalpur and Baghat-a small Simla Hills State hardly 36 square miles in area, in
(1850), Udaipur on the western frontier of lower Bengal (1852), Jhansi (1853) and

58
Nagpur (1854). Of these the cases of Satara, Jhansi and Nagpur deserve special attention
as illustrations of Dalhousie’s heartless approach towards the Indian States.
(i) Satara (1848): Satara, according to Dalhousie’s thinking, was a creation of the British,
as it was bestowed on a non-descript descendant of the House of Shivaji after the fall of
the Peshwa in 1819. This was done obviously to conciliate the Maratha sentiment which
was considerably agitated because of the abolition of the title and the authority of the
Peshwa.
The annexation of Satara aroused much “virtuous indignation”. The State of Satara had
existed for a long time before the rise of the Peshwa to power and they themselves had
resolved in 1818 to rescue the Raja of Satara from the stranglehold of the Peshwa and
place him at the head of an independent sovereignty. As it turned out, this proved to be a
mere stratagem. In 1839 the Raja of Satara was deposed on a charge of misgovernment
and was replaced by his brother. The new king was childless, and immediately after his
elevation to the throne, applied for permission to adopt a son. The British Government
deliberately withheld the permission; and it was from his death-bed that the Raja hastily
adopted a son without the consent of the British Government. This was the situation
which Dalhousie faced after his arrival in India. Lord Dalhousie and all those British
officials who counted, held that the adoption by the late Raja and Satara in the absence of
any sanction of the British Government could not be deemed valid. The State therefore
lapsed to the paramount power. The Court of Directors sustained his action on the ground
that “by the general law and custom of India a dependent principality like that of Satara
cannot pass to an adopted heir without the consent of the paramount power and that were
are under no pledge to give such consent and that general interests committed to our
charge are best consulted by withholding it.”
(ii) Jhansi (1853): Another important annexation by lapse was that of Jhansi. It was a
district of Bundelkhand ceded to the English by the Peshwa in 1817. It was handed over
to one named Ramchandra by Lord Hastings. Ramchandra, being childless, was
succeeded by his uncle Raghunath Rao in 1838. Raghunath Rao was succeeded by his
brother Gangadhar Rao who died in 1853 with an unrecognisedadopted son. This gave
Dalhousie the necessary pretax to annex the state of Jhansi.
By his ruthless application of the Doctrine of Lapse, Dalhousie had made substantial
territorial additions of greatstrategic and economic importance to the ever-expanding
British Indian Empire.
Nagpur (1854): The British acquisition of Berar in 1853 in its turn made the annexation
of Nagpur only a matter of time. Berar had been given to the Nizam of Hyderabad by
Wellesley after the latter's victory over the Marathas. But the Nizam was in huge arrears
of payment to the British for the upkeep of a force. By 1853 the Nizam was in such a
helpless position that he had to agree to the cession of Berar and a few other districts,
yielding a gross revenue of fifty lacks to the Company. It is not very difficult to guess the

59
motive behind this action. Dalhousie himself very candidly made this admission: “In the
possession of Berar and the neighbouring districts, the British Government has secured
the finest cotton tracts which are known”.
From Berar the road led straight to Nagpur which had fallen into the hands of the British
in 1818, but Lord Hastings reinstated Raghoji, a member of the royal house, over a short
principality. The Raja died in 1853 without adopting any heir and so the state was
annexed by Dalhousie. The willy Governor-General was not disturbed by the fact that the
late Raja had made repeated requests to the Resident for permission to adopt a son to
which no attention at all was paid by him. There were strong political and economic
reasons which weighed having with Dalhousie. Even a strong apologist of Dalhousie like
Lee Warner has admitted that in the case of Satara and Nagpur imperial considerations
determined his policy. “They (Nagpur and Satara) were placed right across the main lines
of communication between Bombay and Madras and Bombay and Calcutta.
Consideration was therefore to be secured by their annexation.” Dalhousie himself noted
that the possession of Nagpur would combine our military strength, would enlarge our
commercial resources and would materially tend to consolidate our power”.
Annexation on the Charge of Misgovernment
Oudh (1856): The Doctrine of Lapse, as stated earlier, was not the only weapon in the
armoury of Dalhousie to expand the British imperial authority in India. In addition to the
wars of aggression that he waged against Burma and the Sikhs, he heartlessly
extinguished the authority of an erstwhile loyal state of Oudh. The annexation of Oudh in
1856 was made not on the ground of lapse or escheat but of misgovernment. Since Lord
Wellesley’s treaty of 1801, Oudh had been kept as a “protected feudatory state” with
control over internal administration. It was indeed an unwise arrangement. Under the
agreement the ruler Oudh was invested with responsibility without powers. Its natural
consequence was that the administration of the state degenerated terribly, to the great
suffering of its people. The British Government fully realised the evils of Oudh
administration. Many Governors General, especially Lord Bentinck and Lord Hardinge,
had warned its rulers; but none did anything to remedy the fundamental defect of the
Subsidiary Alliance System, which by guaranteeing British protection to the ruler of
Oudh, made him unmindful of the real interests of the state and saved him from
“justifiable revolt on the part of his subjects”. The attention of the British Government
was drawn more clearly than before to the growing deplorable situation in Oudh, by
Coloneal Sleeman, Resident in Oudh from 1848-1854. His successor, Colonel Outram
convinced the Governor-General of the necessity of the adoption of a bolder policy. Lord
Dalhousie was inclined to solve the problem by taking over the administration of Oudh
and by allowing its ruler to retain only his palace, rank and titles. But the Court of
Directors ordered the complete annexation of Oudh which was formally proclaimed in
1856. Wajid Ali Shah, the last ruler of Oudh, was pensioned off to Calcutta. In order to

60
justify this high-handed action, the Company piously declared that “That British
Government would be guilty in the sight of God and man if it were any longer to aid in
sustaining by its continence and administration faught with suffering to millions.”
The annexation of Oudh was a clear case of territorial aggrandisement which, as
Dalhousie himself confessed, was “not warranted by international law.” Moreover, by
thrusting upon the Oudh the impolitic arrangement of subsidiary alliance system and by
unceasingly interfering in its affairs, the Company itself was responsible for the
misgovernment in Oudh. As Sir Henry Lawrence has pointed out; “The facts furnished by
every writer on Oudh affairs, all testify to the same point that British interference with
that province has been as prejudicial to its court and people as it has been disgraceful to
the British name.” The annexation of Oudh marked the end of the traditional British
policy of sustaining Oudh as a useful buffer against the Marathas. Now that the Maratha
power had been liquidated and the British authority had no rival in India, Oudh was
thought by Dalhousie to be an anomaly whose existence as an independent state was no
longer necessary for British interests.
Annexations by Conquesto
(i) Panjab: The administration of the Panjab installed after the first Sikh War, though
efficient, economic and honest, was not liked by the Sikh aristocracy “whose love of
independence and stern pride could not tolerate the existence of an alie power.” The
Sikhs preferred a national government, in spite of its extravagance, and incompetence and
“were intent on a determined struggle with the British.” Soon the Sikhs revolted against
the British authority. The Sikhs fought bravely at Chilianwala, but were completely
defeated by Lord Gough at Gujarat. The Panjab was ultimately annexed by Dalhousie in
1849.
(ii) Burma: The alleged maltreatment of some British merchants by the Burmese
authorities provided an opportunity to Dalhousie to wage war against Burma. The
military expedition proved brilliantly successful. By a proclamation dated December 20,
1852 the province of Pegu together with the rich and flourishing port of Rangoon was
annexed to the British Empire.
Extinction of Titular Sovereignties
To complete the story, one must add that the principle of lapse was also applied to
liquidate some of the “titular sovereignties” on the ground that “appearances without the
reality of authority were sure to shake native confidence” in the good faith of the
Company. Thus on the death of the Nawab of Carnatic in 1853, Dalhousie refused to
recognise anyone as his successor. Similarly, the Rajaship of the Tanjore State was
abolished for good when the Raja died in 1855. On the death of the ex-Peshwa Baji Rao
II in 1853, Lord Dalhousie refused to pay the pension of eight hundred thousand rupees to

61
Baji Rao’s adopted son, Dundu Pant who was later known as Nana Sahib, on the ground
that personal allowance could not pass onto the successor.
Conclusion
The net result of all these annexations of Dalhousie was to bring the whole of India under
Pax Britannica. When Dalhousie left India, he could justly claim that the country was at
peace without and within. He was, however, not quite certain about the duration of the
peace. As subsequent events showed, it did not last long. Apart from natural resentment
against his policy of lapse and the extension of British paramountcy, there were two other
significant factors which he overlooked viz., the birth of Indian intelligentsia which was
critical of the British rule and the growing tendency among the English ruling class to
isolate themselves from the Indians. These were bound to have serious repercussions.
Thus the upsurge of 1857 had it in something of the inevitability of a Greek tragedy.

62
 Unit-III

Economic Impact of British Rule in India

before and after 1857

Pre-British Village Economy

British rule had a far-reaching impact on Indian economy. The centuries old economic
structure was shattered and transformed. The underlying purpose of British economic
policies in India was to subordinate Indian economy to the needs of British economy.
This led to the gradual transformation of Indian economy into a colonial economy. In this
respect, the British conquest of India differed from all previous conquests. The previous
conquerors had established their political authority in order to control state revenues, but
they had left the economic structure of the country relatively undisturbed. Moreover, they
had, in course of time, become a part of the Indian social, cultural and political life. In
particular, the basic economic pattern of the self-sufficient village economy had
continued almost unchanged. The village artisans, viz., the black-smiths, the carpenters,
the cobblers, the priests and he washermen were integrated into the village economy
along with the cultivators and were mutually dependent as well as integrated. The chief
contact of the village with the outside world was in the form of the payment of land
revenue or the export of economic surplus either inside the state or outside.
Consequently, the village life and economy continued more or less unchanged even when
the political rulers changed. The change of rulers only meant, so far as the peasant was
concerned, a change in the personnel of those who appropriated or took possession of the
economic surplus of the peasants. The British conquerors differed fundamentally in this
respect. They disrupted the traditional village economy. They failed to become an integral
part of India like even after a period of mearly 200 years. Up to the end, their rule was
rooted in British and British interests. The interests of British economy remained
dominant. The Englishmen remained perpetually foreigners in India. The result of this
subordination of India economy to the British needs was that Indian economic
backwardness was perpetuated and intensified. When the British left the country, they left
India in a highly undeveloped condition economically.
Zaminidari System
After the English East India Company had established its hold over Bengal, Bihar and
Orissa, they made many experiments with regards to the realization of land revenue from
the cultivators. Lord Cornwallis made the Permanent Settlement in 1793. The Zamindar
was declared the absolute owner and proprietor of his estate. He was permitted to
appropriate the whole of the rents of himself after paying the dues of the Government. To
begin with his share was small. He was given only 11% of the rents. He was obliged to
part with the major portion of his income to the Government. While the land revenue

63
demand by the Government was fixed, the rent realised by the landlord from the
cultivator was left unsettled and unspecified. This provided the Zamindars an opportunity
to squeeze the cultivator to the maximum of his capacity. Eventually, the Permanent
Settlement benefited the Zamindar more than the Government. With the growth of
population, the extension of cultivation, the rise of prices, and the growing scarcity of
land, the position of the Zamindar improved. His title to the succession of an estate died
not require any payment. He could transfer or alienate his landed property by sale,
mortgage or gift without requiring the permission of any superior authority. He was
relieved of the vexatious regulations of the Mughal administration which very much
limited his authority and obliged him to collect cesses over and above the land revenue
demand and to furnish accounts of receipts and disbursements. The British-created
Zamindar was divested of all political and public duties. He ceased to be the feudal
aristocrat of the Mughals and was transformed into a petty capitalist. The change in the
status and function of the Zamindar also affected the socio-political organisation of the
Indian village, destroying eventually its isolation and self-sufficiency. Two principal
results of the change were the creation of absolute property in land and its transfer into
the hands of the new moneyed class which had no interest in land other than that of
getting the maximum return on the investment and the sub-infeudation of estates and
holdings so that there emerged a chain of middlemen and intermediary rent-receiving
interests between the original landlord and the cultivator.
In 1793, the share of the English Company out of the total rents collected by the
Zamindars came to 89 per cent while in England at the same time, the Government
demand amounted to between 5 per cent to 10 per cent of the net rental. The share of the
Indian Zamindars was the barest minimum to compensate him for the troubles of
collection, for discharging obligations towards the Government and for defraying his
personal expense. The worst feature of the system of realisation was that the Government
revenue had to be deposited absolutely punctually. If the payment was not made at the
stroke of the hour, the Zamindar was dispossessed and a part of the whole of the estate
was seized and sold by public auction. No excuse was entertained and no allowance was
made for his difficulties. While the Government realised its dues at the point of bayonet,
the Zamindar had no power to compel the cultivator to pay the rent in time. The result
was that a large number of Zamindar were deprived of their estates during the first few
years of the permanent settlements of Bengal. In 1796, lands carrying a rental of Rs.
28,70,061 on the roll and representing one-tenth of three provinces were sold in one year.
In the two years between 1796-97 and 1797-98, the sale of estate yeilding Rs. 14 lakhs
and 22.7 lakhs respectively was effected and “by the end of century the greater portion of
the estates of the Nadiya, Rajshahi, Vishnupur and Dinajpur Rajas had been alienated.
The Burdwan estate was seriouly crippled and the Zamindars of Birbhum were
completely ruined. A large number of smaller Zamindars met with the same fate. To help
the Zamindars, the Government issued the Regulations of 1799. The new law invested the

64
Zamindar with arbitrary powers to eject the cultivator, attach his agricultural stocks and
implements for non-payments of arrears and start other proceedings against him with a
view to press him to his utmost capacity.
Another effect of the Permanent Settlement was the sub-infeuation of Zamindari rights.
This happened very quickly. In 39 districts of Bengal and Bihar, the number of estates
multiplied in 20 years to the figure of 1,10,456. In 20, years, the number of estates
doubled in the Patna division and trebled in the Tirhut Division. The tendency to sub-
division was increased by the Regulations of 1799. Not only the units of cultivation but
the rent-collecting rights were also subdivided. The new Zamindari rights proved
valuable property and only 20 years after the Permanent Settlement, the interest of the
Zamindars which amounted to not more than 11 per cent of the revenue assessment were
being sold for nearly 28 years purchase. The rent-receiving rights came to have a value
which they did not possess before and were freely bought and sold in the market. Instead
of the land being a source of production and livelihood for the cultivators, it became an
object of speculative investment and a source of profit to the moneyed classes. The
Zamindar farmed out his revenue to a middle man who, in turn contracted with a sub-
farmer and the latter also entered into dealings with a number of underlings and so on. It
was in this way that a chain of rent-receiving was created. The evil became so great that
some holdings in Bengal are said to have got at the time of abolition of Zamindari as
many as 150 intermediary interests between the original landlord and the actual
cultivator. Each sub-agent tried to squeeze the next man to the utmost and the burden of
all exactions ultimately fell on the cultivator. The new landlords, in most cases, were
businessmen who purchased land in search for profitable investment of surplus funds.
They were unfamiliar with the affairs of cultivation and were uninterested in the work of
agricultural improvement which was left to the cultivator who had neither the means, nor
the knowledge, nor the will to carry it out. The landlords were mere rent-receiving
absentee businessmen who cared more for their rents than for the improvement of the
agriculture. Instead of being natural leaders of the rural population, the landlords in India
during the days of the English Company played the role of agents to the foreign political
power. Against a guarantee of regular payment of a fixed amount of land revenue to the
Government, they purchased the right of exacting whatever they could from the
politically defenceless and economically weak peasantry.
Ryotwari System
The same was the case with Madras and Bombay where the ryotwari system was
introduced. Instead of the Zamindar, the peasant became the proprietor. The recognition
of private property in land gave him the rights of lease, mortgage and sale. However, the
lot of cultivator did not improve as the Government took away most of the produce in the
form of land revenue and very little was left with the peasant. Later on, the Government
realised the folly of high assessments and lowered its demand. In Bombay and Madras, it

65
was inexpedient to oust the cultivator and hence the money-lender brought the lands and
crops under his control by means of giving loans to the peasant. This happened because
the cultivator had to pay the Government demand exactly by a particular date even if the
crops failed and he had noting with him. The peasant was forced to borrow from the
money-lender. Interest rates were fixed so high that the cultivator was at best able to pay
only the interest on the loan and the re-payment of the principal became practically
impossible. The cultivator found himself helpless as he failed to get protection from
anywhere. The courts established by the British Government accepted the documents and
account books of the money-lenders as valid proof of the debt and awarded decrees on
such false evidence as the creditor produced in the court. There was perpetual struggle
between the money-lenders and the cultivators, the former trying to get the large
proportion of the annual produce of the labour of the latter. The money-lender helped by
British rules and British laws easily succeeded in achieving his object. The land was
introduced by the British were responsible for disruption of the old agrarian structure and
the creation of a new social order. The new rent-receiving landlords, money-lenders and
businessman formed the nucleus of the new middle class which emerged in country in the
19th century. The disposed cultivators, the village artisans and the village menials who
had lost their customary ties with the agricultural population on the decay of the village
communities and the introduction of competition instead of custom in the determination
of the relation between the classes, became the proletariat of the country.
Mahalwari System–break-up of village communities
The land-revenue system established by the British in India and the assumption of all
judicial and administrative functions by government official destroyed the powers of the
old intermediaries-Zamindars, farmers and the village panchayats. This led to the break-
up of that ancient social framework within which the agricultural population had lived for
centuries. An attempt was made to stop the process of break-up of village communities
but without success. Although the assessment was fixed on the village as a whole,
individual rights in the land were recognised and guaranteed by the state. The growing
pressure of population on agricultural made land a valuable property and its price
increased steadily. The opening of the market for agricultural produce and the growth of
cash crops by the farmer also produced similar effects. The developments imposed a
heavy strain on the rural organisation and the village communities faced out of existence
in the Mahalwari areas of the north in the same way as they died under the Zamindari
system in Bengal and the Ryotwari system in the south. With the disintegration of the old
village organisation, the old social bonds were broken. The joint family system and the
panchayats became very weak. Cooperation was replaced by competition. Prices, rents
and wages all came to be determined by contract between the buyers and the sellers and
the collective life of the village was replaced by individualism. The modes of production
and the structure of rural economy were changed. Instead of catering to the needs of the
village population, agricultural production came to be adapted to the requirements of the

66
external market. The need of the farmer for money increased and he began to produce
case crops to get the same. Formerly, changes in his income were due to climatic causes
only but now he was affected by the fluctuations in the market. A fall in the price of
agricultural produce in any part of the world became as much a matter of concern to him
as a failure of his crops caused by drought. The necessity of paying the revenue demand
at the exact time forced him to part with his produce immediately after the harvest. Partly
because of small holdings, partly because of heavy assessments and party due to the rack-
renting by the landlords and the high rates of interest charged by the money-lenders, the
agriculturists failed to get any benefit from the change. The advantage was mainly gained
by the village grain-dealer and the commission agent in the produce marker. The opening
of the village to outside imports gave a deadly blow to the village-crafts and industries.
The village artisan lost his customers and the market for his wares. From an industrial
worker, he was transformed into a landless labourer seeking work in agricultural,
sometimes as a tenant and at other times as a wage labourer. Next to the peasantry, the
weavers and the other village artisans came to constitute the most important part of the
rural proletariat in the first half of the 19th century.
Heavy assessments
The heavy assessments made by the Government held up agricultural progress and
reduced the cultivating classes to a state of abject poverty and resourcelessness. The
theory of the early British rules was that agricultural land in India belonged to the ruler
and the English Company by right of conquest, had become the owner of all land in the
country. As the overlord, the Government was entitled to the whole of the economic rent
which was found by deducting the cost of production from the value of crops raised. At
the time of the Permanent Settlement of Bengal, the demand of the Government was
fixed at 89 per cent of the estimated economic rent. The remaining 11 per cent was left to
the landlords as compensation for the labour of collecting land revenue. In Northern
India, under the provisions of Regulation VII of 1822, the revenue demand was fixed at
80 per cent of the net assets of land. In Bombay Presidency, prior to the first regular
settlement of 1824-28, the demand of the state was fixed very high. Later on, the
principle of limiting the Government share to 55 per cent of the net produce was accepted
but that was only in name. In actual practice, the demand was much more.
In Madras, in the earlier settlement, the Government demand was fixed at 45 to 55 per
cent of the gross produce of the land. Even if the cost of production was half of the gross
produce, the assessment in the Presidency took away the whole of the economic rent.
This was found to be oppressive and the Madras Government recommended to the Court
of Directors to limit the assessment to one-third of the gross produce. Ultimately this
principle was accepted for Madras Presidency. With such high rates of taxation, it was
impossible for capital to accumulate in agriculture or any incentive to be left for the
landowner to make improvements in land. In the permanently settled areas, the Zamindar

67
considered his function to be limited to the collection of his rent. The rent in these areas
depended on the bargain that could be struck with the tenants rather than on the increase
in the produce of the land. The result was that the landlords took away the whole of the
economic surplus and left practically nothing with cultivator. In the Ryotwari areas, the
Government played the role of the rack-renting landlord. The land revenue demand in the
Madras and Bombay Presidencies was so high that it took away the whole of the surplus
production of the land. The reason why the English Company adopted an oppressive and
revenue policy was to meet the cost of their conquests and also to support the expensive
system of their administration. The expenditure of the Company was increasing year after
year. India was required to bear the heavy cost of administration with her declining
resources. With her trade and industry ruined by the foreign conqueror, the burden of
taxation had to be borne by the agriculturists. Land revenue was the backbone of Indian
finance in the days of the English Company and its rate was determined more by the
requirements of the Government than what the cultivator could pay reasonably. The result
was that the peasantry was ruined and agriculture declined to a state of extreme
backwardness. The Indian cultivator struck to the soil and sweated for his subsistence as
he had no alternative opening for employment. A growing population was condemned to
subject on a declining agriculture. The misery of the masses, the increase in the incidence
of famine and disease and the unemployment in the country were the inevitable results of
the system.
Restriction on Indian Trade
Towards the end of the 17th century, India was famous in the industrial filed as a result of
a high demand for Indian cotton goods in England, induced by a remarkable change in
English fashions and modes of dress. The English East India Company took advantage of
this opportunity and began to import large quantities of cotton cloth from India. About
1670, there was a sudden increase in the demand for textiles and this was immediately
reflected in the orders placed by the Directors for purchase in India. In view of their
popularity import duties on them were abolished in England in 1684 and that gave further
impetus to the demand. With the prohibition of imports from France in 1688, the Indian
calicoes emerged as the biggest item of imports of the English Company from India.
Before this, the things bought by the Company were mainly saltpetre, indigo, pepper and
other commodities, but after 1688, textile goods of various kinds were mostly imported in
England.
This new development led to opposition to the England Company in England. The attack
came from the mercantilists and the woolen and silk manufacturers. The former attacked
the Indian trade on the ground that it led to the export of treasure from England. What the
country obtained in exchange for gold and silver was Indian muslins. It was also
contended that the import of cotton goods destroyed the ancient woolen and the nascent
silk industries and that resulted in unemployment and suffering among the weavers. The

68
opponents of the Company pained a grim picture of the country as a result of the Indian
imports. The result of this agitation was that the English Company had to withdraw from
India the weavers, pattern makers and artists which had been sent from England to advise
Indian weavers about European tastes and fashion and to persuade them to produce the
patterns of cloth in great demand in Europe. The agitators were not satisfied with this
concession and they demanded strict legislation to meet the situation.
The result was that an Act was passed in 1700 which provided that from 29 September
1701, all manufactured silks, Bengal's stuffs mixed with silk or herba, or the manufacture
of Persia, China, or East Indies and all calicoes painted, dyed, printed or stained which
may be imported in England, were not to be worn or otherwise used by the people of
England. However, the Act of 1700 failed to stop completely the import of Indian
calicoes into England. The result was that in 1702, an import duty of 15 per cent was
imposed on plain cottons. That shifted the demand from coarse and cheap calicoes to
superior muslins. As a result of further agitation, an Act was passed in 1720 which
prohibited the wear and use of Indian silk and calicoes, printed or dyed in England under
the penalty of £.5 for each offence on the wearer and of £.20 on the seller.
By this time, the cotton industry in England was developing rapidly. By the middle of the
18th century, it was well-established. The British printers were able to print goods, which
were better in workmanship than Indian goods. As a result of the influence of restrictions
on imports to Europe and the growth of European industry, the Indian cotton trade with
Europe began to suffer a decline from the middle of the 18th century.
Destruction of Indigenous Industries
After the British rule was established firmly in India, the political power was used by the
British Government to destroy completely the arts and crafts of the people of India. They
held their own till about the decade of 19th century. It was after 1820 that they suffered a
heavy blow in the form of the fall in the foreign demand for their products.
During the early decades of the 19th century, neither the existing import duties nor the
fall in the cost of production of cotton piece-goods resulting from the use of steam power
and machinery enabled England to compete with goods from India in the markets of
Europe. Indian price continued to be from 50 per cent to 60 per cent lower than English
price. In order to create favourable conditions for its own goods, Britain used her political
power to defeat the Indian goods. The duties on Indian imports were made prohibitive
and Indian producers were saddled with crippling burdens. For example, the rates of
duties on Indian calicoes were more than 68 per cent ad valorem in addition to other
duties on the same. Silk manufactures from India were completely prohibited for home
use in England. In India had been independent, she could have retaliated and imposed
preventive duties on British goods and preserved her own productive industry from
destruction. The fact was that she was at the mercy of the English Company. British
goods were forced upon India without paying any duty and the foreign manufacturer

69
employed the arm of political injustice to keep down and ultimately completely strangle
the Indian manufacturer. The enormous increase in the exports of British manufactures to
India after 1813 was largely due to the commercial policy of Britain and her political
domination over India.
The English Company manipulated prices which was detrimental to the interest of Indian
artisans. It oppressed the weavers and followed other restrictive policies which ruined
Indian Industries, particularly the cotton industry of Bengal. The mechanism of making
purchases of Indian goods and providing the Company's investments in India was to
contrived as to result in oppression and defrauding of the poor weaver. Agents called
Gomashtas were engaged by the Company mostly on monthly basis. Each Gomashta
accompanied by a clerk and a cashier paid visits to the interior of the country at regular
intervals for the purpose of making profils. When Mir Jafar was put on the throne in
1757, the Gomashtas of the English Company had become so powerful that no Raja or
Zamindar could oppose them. After 1765, the Gomashtas came to derive their authority
directly from the Company and exercise powers on its behalf. They were not only
commercial agents, but also law-givers and magistrates from whose decisions there was
no appeal. In the words of William Bolts, “The assent of the poor weavers is in general
not deemed necessary; for the Gomashtas when employed on the Company's investment
frequently make them sign what they please; and upon the weavers refusing to take the
money offered, it has been known they have had it tied to their girdles and they have been
sent away with a flogging”. Many weavers were registered in the books of the Company
and they were not allowed to work for any one else. They were transferred from one
Gomashta of the Company to another was so many slaves, subject to the tyranny and
roguery of every succeeding Gomashta.” Peons and watchmen were employed to
supervise them so that they did not sell goods to anyone other than the Gomastha of the
Company. On the slightest suspicion of the intention of the weavers of doing so, pieces of
cloth were cutout of the loom even before they reached the finished stage. If inspite of
this, any weaver dared to sell his goods to anyone else with the connivance or support of
Dallals, both the broker and the weaver were “seized and imprisoned, confined in irons,
fined considerable sums of money, flogged and deprived, in the most ignominious
manner of what they esteem most valuable by their caste.” With the investment of the
Company Gomashtas combined personal and private business and made use of their
arbitrary powers for buying goods on their accounts on the same favourable terms on
which they purchased goods for the Company.
The English Company also manipulated the prices of raw material to the detriment of
Indian producers. Bengal obtained its supplies of finer varieties of cotton from Bombay
and Surat. The servants of the Company formed a private company consisting of the
members of the Council at Calcutta in order to corner the supplies and to raise the prices
in Bengal. They purchased cotton worth Rs. 25 lakhs from Surat, causing the shooting up
of prices immediately from the prevailing range of Rs. 16 to 18 per maund to Rs. 28 to 30

70
per as those were arbitrarily fixed form him by the purchase agents of the Company,
while he was forced to pay high prices for raw materials.
The result of these practices was that the craftsmen in India were ruined. The few
adventures in the service of the Company made fortunes and retired to England but they
did not care for the lot of the Indian craftmen. The prices of Indian manufactures were
inflated without any corresponding increase in the wages of labour. The quality of Indian
products was debased. The history of early period of British rule in India is a tale of
vandalism, plunder, oppression and destruction of Indian handicrafts and manufactures.
The flourishing towns in India became desolate and the Indian artisans became mere
wage labourers. It is pointed out that by 1789, the prosperous industrial province of
Bengal was so ruined that it had been converted into “a jungle inhabited only by wild
beats.”
Trade and Commerce ruined
There was also the disruption of Indian trade. This was brought about by the institution of
monopolies by the servants of the Company and its diversion from nature channels. The
English Company had obtained exemption from the payment of transit and customs
duties since the time of Furrukhsiyar, bit it had abused this concession. On the
assumption of political power in Bengal, the English Company came to control the
commercial activity of the country. Indian the foreign merchants were ousted from their
business by discriminatory taxation and the establishment of trade monopoly in important
commodities, under Lord Clive, almost the whole of the inland trade was the monopoly
of the English Company and its servants. The system of transit duties was used to
maintain those monopolies and save the monopolies from losses on their transactions.
The internal trade was in the hands of the servants of the Company and big fortunes were
made by the higher servants of the Company. It is pointed out that even the Governor-
General took part in his traffic. These activities not only pushed out the Indians from
internal trade but also defrauded the producer and the consumer by forcing the former to
sell cheap and the latter to buy dear. The Bengal famine of 1770 was the direct result of
the monopolies in trade. “The English manufactured a famine by buying up all the rise
and refusing to sell it again except at fabulous prices.”
It is true that transit and customs duties were levied on the inland trade even during the
Mughal rule in India but when the British came to have power in Bengal, they increased
the rate of transit and customs duties and also imposed customs duties on commodities
that hitherto been exempt and raised new tariff and toll barriers. An elaborate machinery
of transit and customs duties was built up in the country. The result was that all the rivals
of the English Company, weather they were the Dutch, the French or merchants, were
ousted from the inland trade of the country. They also added to the revenues of the
Company which were used partly for meeting the military and civil expenses of the
country and partly in making purchases of Indian goods for export to England.

71
In 1769, the Directors of the English Company issued instructions to the English
authorities in India that the manufacture or raw silk should be encouraged in Bengal and
manufactured silk fabrics should be discouraged. It was also recommended that the silk
winders should be forced to work in the factories of the English Company and they
should be prohibited from working in their own homes. The Dutch and the French were
prevented by the English Company from making purchases of Indian goods from the
territories of the English Company. The producers and artisans were prohibited from
selling their products to the agents of the non-British Companies. The Gomashtas or
agents of the Dutch and French Companies were often beaten up and molested by the
agents of the English Company.
The British industrialists were able to influence the Parliament to follow such a policy as
would extend the market for British goods in India. The English Company lost its
monopoly of trade with India in 1813 and the result was that Indian trade was thrown
open to all Britons. After some time, the restrictions on the settlement of British nationals
in the interior of India were withdrawn and permission was given to the British capitalists
to settle and invest their capital in the cultivation of land in the plantation industries. The
British exports to India during the period of 15 years after 1813 increased four times. A
policy of free trade was imposed on India at a time when her industries were on the
decline and required protection from outside competition. British goods were imported
into India either free or at nominal rates of duties although Indian manufactures continued
to be subjected to high import duties in England. There was an increase in India's foreign
trade but that was not beneficial to the people of India who actually became poorer and
poorer. While formerly India was the principal producer and exporter of cotton fabrics in
the world, she now became one of the largest consumers of foreign manufactures. Cotton
textiles were the major items of imports. That shows how political power was used by the
Britishers to increase their trade and profits there from at the cost of the people of India.
Instead of being the exporter of manufactured goods, India became the exporter of raw
cotton, raw silk, food grains, opium, indigo and tea. That resulted in agricultural
shortages and famines in India. Foreign trade in India was an instrument of exploitation
of the resources of country and her economic enslavement.
It was recognised by the British that they could not continue to flood the Indian market
with their manufactured goods, unless India was able to pay for them in some shape or
form. The remedy suggested was the colonization of India and stimulation of production
by the settlement of British nationals in the interior of the country and the investment of
British capital. Land was offered to the British nationals in India either as freehold or on
long leases of 60 years for purposes of cultivation and establishment of plantation
industries. Transit duties on the inland trade were withdrawn and the whole of the trade
and industry of India was thrown open to foreign enterprises. However, India could not
be colonised in the same sense as was the case in America, Australia and New Zealand as
India was already a thickly populated and highly developed country. There were no waste

72
lands for development. There was too much of fragmentation of land in India and the
cultivation of small strips of land by Englishmen was neither possible nor profitable. The
only crops they found suitable for their enterprise was coffee and tea. They were given
hugh tracts of land for their development. The climate of India also did not suit the
Englishmen and many of them died in India. This discouraged colonisation of India.
Moreover, the Englishmen could not succeed in competition with the Indians in business
enterprises located in the interior of the country. That was due to the fact that the people
of India were frugal, industrious and intelligent. As the cost of living of the Indians was
very low, they could under-sell the goods produced by the Europeans. The result was that
the British failed to convert India into an English settlement. Their capital was invested
only in those industries and commercial activities from which Indians were excluded on
account of the special privileges given to the Englishmen. Foreign capital was invested in
tea and coffee plantations, indigo manufacture shipping foreign exchange banks and
insurance.
The English Company constructed railways to provide cheap and easy means of transport
in the country. With this help, goods manufactured in England could be sold in the
interior of the country and the Indian manufacturers could be thrown out of the market.
The rate of freight on foreign goods was kept very low and discriminatory duties were
levied on the Indian goods. The result that goods manufactured in England were sold at
cheaper rates in interior of India than the goods produced in India itself. Moreover, large
sums of money were borrowed from England from the construction of railways and the
people of India had to pay for them.
Drain of Indian Wealth
There was drain of wealth from India even during the period of the English East India
Company. The English Company purchased Indian goods out of the revenues collected
from Bengal and exported them to England. The purchase were known as investment but
they were a drain of wealth from India. It has been estimated that during the first six years
of the Company's administration in Bengal, the net revenue was £.13,066,761 and total
expenses were £.9,027,609. This clearly left a balance of £.4,039,152 which was remitted
to England in the form of goods. In addition of this drain of wealth from India to
England, the Englishmen made fortunes in India and they remitted all those amounts to
England. The volume of economic drain of India continued to increase with the passage
of time. The estimate of Willian Digby was that “probably between Plassey and Waterloo
a sum of £.1,000 million was transferred from Indian hoards to English banks”.
It is worthy of notice that the drain of wealth from India to England helped the industrial
development of England. There was a close relation between the industrial Revolution in
England and the establishment of British rule in India. In the initial stage of the Industrial
Revolution in England, the flow of wealth from India provided the funds necessary for
Industrial production in England. This is clear from the fact that the battle of Plassey was

73
fought in 1757. The flying shuttle appeared in 1760. In 1764, Hargreaves invented the
Spinning Jenny. In 1779, Crompton invented the mule. In 1785, Cartwright patented the
powerloom. In 1768 Watts invented the steam engine. It is contended that England would
not have been bale to make much use of the introduction of implements of processes
involves large outlay. It is not worthwhile for any man, however energetic, to make the
attempt, unless he has a considerable command of capital and has access to a large
market. All these conditions were present in the second-half of the 18th century.
About the economic impact of the English Company on India, Dr. Tara Chand writes that
it destroyed the trade and industry of the country. It started by excluding the Indian
products from the European markets. It then broke up the India handloom and destroyed
the spinning wheel. If flooded India with cotton manufactures. It oppressed the weavers
and other artisans and perpetrated inhuman crimes to crush the rival producers. The
British exacted a cruel and unjust annual tribute from India which prevented any
accumulation of capital or improvements in agriculture or industry. The productive
organisation of India was destroyed. The country which was once known for its riches all
over the world was reduced to a state of poverty, disease, misery and starvation. By 1857,
the work of economic revolution had been completed.
The view of Dr. Bisheshwar Prasad is that by the middle of the 19th century, the
traditional industry in India was decaying. It did not possess the infrastructure to survive
the shocks of competition and iniquitous state policy. The drain of wealth was continuous
and its result was growing impoverishment of the people, greater strain on agriculture,
increasing unemployment or under-employment and diminishing margin of security
against famines. In the agricultural sector, heavy government imports had resulted in the
extreme exploitation of the cultivator, sucking of his life-blood. In the industrial field,
there was decay and impoverishment. The wealth of the country was drained year after
year to England. The Englishmen in India were getting richer and the national wealth of
England was fast increasing. The Industrial Revolution in England was helped by the
capital derived from India. English industries were developing so fast that England
became the foremost industrial nation. The prosperity of England betokened poverty of
India. India had become the victim of colonialism and all the evils of imperialism had
become evident before the English East India Company was ended in 1858 after the
Revolt of 1857.

74
 ADMIMISRTATIVE REORGANISATION, 1765-1857

PART I (1765 – 1793)

The battle of Buxar marks the culmination of British expansion in Bengal. Spear has
rightly pointed out, “Plassey market the beginning the British expansion in Benagal;
Buxar determined the success of enterprises”1. The very existence of Mir Kasim caused
consternation to the Court of Directors. “The very existence of the Company now seemed
to be in question.2 Under such circumstances, Clive was sent out as Governor and
Commander-in-Chief of Bengal.”
Reaching Calcutta on 3rdMay, 1765, he was called upon to take a very difficult decision.
He had to decide where to stop. The British could even go up to Delhi and restore the
Mughal throne to Shah Alam. But this course did not seem practical he wisely limited
Company’s influence to Bengal and Bihar. He was next confronted with the question
whether to assume the entire administration of Bengal or to establish some sort of control
on the system already existing. Clive did not think it advisable to encumber the Company
with the responsibility of direct administration and established instead system of
administration known as the “Double Government”.

I. THE DOUBLE GOVERNMENT (1765 – 1772)

On the basis of agreement with the Nawab concluded on 20th February 1765 the English
practically acquired control over the Nizamat, while in August, 1765 Shah Alam, the
Mughal Emperor granted Diwani of Bengal to the Company. During the Mughal period,
the Nazim* was responsibe for general administration including criminal justice. The
Diwani looked after the finances and civil justice. On the decline of the Mughal authority
in the 18th century, the Nazim became quite powerful and the Office of Diwani also
passed under its control. But the two offices still retained their original distinction. By the
acquisition both of the Nizamat, and the Diwani the English now had full control over the
Bengal Government, but they did not assume the responsibility of its direct
administration. The administration continued to be carried on in the name of the Nawab
and by his officers. The Company appropriated to itself the surplus of the revenue left
after meeting the expenses of administration. This government in which power was
divorced from responsibility is called the “Double Government”. It continued to plague
Bengal from 1765 till 1772 when Warren Hasting put an end to it. According to Bolts, the
Calcutta Council accepted the experiment as it afforded the English full opportunity to
make fabulous fortunes from Bengal trade. Other considerations also weighed with the

1
Percival Spear: The Oxford History of Modern India, 1740-1947, p. 28
2
Ibid: p. 30.
*Not to be confused with the Nizam of Hyderbad. Nazim in Bengal was the designation of an
administrative officer.

75
British. The Company did not possess the required staff for the administration and the
Court of Directors were not in favour of the assumption of administrative responsibility
in India.
The Calcutta Council appointed Mohammad Raza Khan to work as Naib Diwan. He also
held the office of Naib Nazim on behalf of the Nawab. As Naib to the Nawab, he looked
after the general administration, including the administration of criminal justice and was
responsible to him. As Naib Diwan, he was responsible to the company for revenue
collection and the administration of civil justice. During the period of the “Double
Government”, the only duty that the Company performed was to see that the land-revenue
was collected in a rigorous manner so that it could have large surplus for its use.” After
the departure of Clive to England in January, 1767, Verelst (1767-69) took charge as the
President of Calcutta Council. He was an honest civil servant but he hardly hand any
force of character which could arrest the predatory instincts of his compatriots and their
Indian agents. He accepted the arrangement of Clive as the most suitable one. He was
also not convinced about the wisdom of introducing British laws and British judicial
system in India. He made an effort to improve the system of revenue collection and even
when the British Resident at Murshidabad was associated with Mohammad Raza Khan in
this work there appeared no Improvement. Actually later on, a Council of Revenue was
also set up at Murshidabad. In 1769 English supervisors were appointed to supervise
revenue collection. Even these supervisors could not resist the temptation of indulging in
the private trade and this “made confusion more confounded and corruption more
corrupt.” (Kaye).
With the assumption of power by the English in Bengal the trade of other European
nations in this province declined fast. The other European traders were practically thrown
out of their business. The supply of gold and silver which England used to export Bengal
for purchasing its goods was stopped. The English Company now bought their goods
from the surplus of Bengal revenues and also sent money to other Presidencies for their
investments and to meet their other financial needs. This adversely affected the prosperity
of Bengal. The English indulged in the internal trade of Bengal freely and they virtually
established a monopoly over it. All those banias and gomasthas, i.e. the agents, having
connection with the British officers used the dread of British name to promote their
interest. Administration undoubtedly became corrupt. Some contemporary accounts even
state that at some places owing to the oppressions of the gomasthas the poor weavers cut
their thumbs so that they might not be compelled to work for them against their wishes.
The Indian banias working as the agents of the Englishmen were generally so harsh and
inhuman in demands that a large number of weavers and artisans of Bengal gave up their
ancestral callings. The quality of the numbers of the Nawab also interest in their working
and began to enrich themselves at the expense of the poor. Crime and lawlessness
increased to an unprecedented extent. This was the condition of Bengal when Cartier
succeeded Verelst in December, 1769.

76
Under the “Double Government “, Bengal suffered seriously from the high-handedness
and oppression of the officials. Its economic life was completely paralysed by the
corruption of the Company’s rapacious servants and their more irresponsible and cruel
Indian agents. Property was no longer secure; anarchy was widespread and administration
had virtually collapsed. The famine of 1769-70 ruined more then two-thirds of the ancient
aristocracy manufacturing and industrial classes, and destroyed nearly one-third of the
population of Bengal. The Muslim historian, Ghulam Hussain, bitterly laments that under
British influence the distress of the people and depopulation of the country went side by
side and corruption and oppression had reached their climax. Consequently, he was
justified in praying thus: “God! Come to the assistance of your afflicted people and set
open some door through which they may escape from oppression!”3 A contemporary
Bengal poet by the name of Ram-prassad Sen (1717 – 1775) vividly reflects in his poetry
“the black shadow of ever-constant oppression” and he draws his imagery “from a life
pillaged and set to endless toil.”4 This type of a government could not last very long. The
Dual Government was essentially system of indirect administration whose inherent
contradictions, basic weaknesses and congenital defects soon became so obvious that
Warren Hasting had to transmute the “indirect system” into a “direct system’ when in
1772, under instructions, from the Court of Directors, the East India Company stood forth
as the Diwan. Thence onward the Company became directly responsible for the collection
of the revenues of the three provinces of Bengal, Bihar and Orissa. British imperialism in
India was now placed on a firm foundation! The British were now directly involved in the
administration of Bengal and as this was the most prosperous region in India, the British
now had a convenient spring board from where they could extend their political activities
in almost all the directions.

II. ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES UNDER WARREN HASTINGS

(1772-1785)
The appointment of Warren Hasting5 as Governor of Bengal in 1772 opens a new chapter
in history. The East India Company had decided to recognise the fait accompli and to rule
Bengal by the right of conquest. The task before Warren Hastings was really a Herculean
one. He had to give Bengal an effective system of administration and to transform a
Company of merchants, ignorantof the customs, and habits of the Indian people, into an
efficient organization well versed in administration. Above all, he had to rehabilitate the
finances of the Company and develop its commerce. The reforms of Warren Hastings can
be conveniently discussed under the following broad headings: (i) administrative,
(ii) revenue, (iii) judicial, and (iv) commercial.
3
Seir Mutagherin; Vol. III, PP. 171-172.
4
Thompson and Garratt: Rise and Fulfilment of British Rule in India; Allahabad 1958, p. 104.
5
Warren Hastings was the Governor of Bengal from 1772 to 1774. As a result of the Regulating Act, he
became the first Governor-General of Company’s territories in India and held that charge from 1774 to
1785.

77
(i) Administrative Reforms
The Court of Directors decided to end the Dual system of administration set up by Clive.
Consequently, in 1772 they ordered the President and Council to ‘stand forth as the
Diwan’ and to assume charge for the entire management of the revenues of Bengal, Bihar
and Orissa.6 Warren Hasting dismissed the two Deputy Diwans, Mohammed Raza Khan
and Raja Shitab Rai. The Governor and the Council formed the Broad Revenue and the
Company appointed its own officers called ‘collectors’ to manage revenue affairs. The
treasury was removed from Murshidabad to Calcutta. All this meant that the internal
administration was transferred to the Company and the Nawab was deprived even of any
ostensible share in the administration. However, Nawab continued, at least nominally, to
be recognized as the head of the province. Warren Hasting also reorganized the
household of the Nawab of Bengal and appointed Munny Begum, the widow of Mir
Jaffar, as the guardian of the minor Nawab, Mubark-ud-daula. The allowance of the
Nawab was reduced from thirty-two lakhs to sixteen lakhs. Further, relations with the
Mughal Emperor were redefined by Warren Hastings. He stooped the payment of twenty-
six lakhs of rupees paid annually to the Emperor Shah Alam since 1765. The districts of
Allahabad and Kora assigned to the Emperor by Clive in 1765 were also taken back and
sold to the Nawab of Oudh for a sum of Rs. Fifty lakhs. Though the motivating force was
economy, the plea put forward was that the Emperor had accepted the protection of the
Marathas. Evidently, treatment metedout to the Emperor was harsh. The Emperor was
never warned of the consequences of his dealing with the Marathas. Warren Hastings’
action was breach of a solemn promise and remains morally and legally indefensible.
(ii) Revenue Reforms
The system of land revenue administration devised by the great Mughal Emperor Akbar
had broken down in the early eighteenth century and what the Company had inherited
was only confusion. The existing state of revenue administration in Northern India
definitely needed a revision.
In order to work out a satisfactory system of land revenue administration, Warren Hasting
tried various experiments based on the proverbial method of trial and error. Here are
some of the more important experiments attempted by Warren Hastings.

6
The historic importance and effects of this decision are explained by James Mill in these words: “The
change was enormous which it was the nature of this decree to produce. It was a revolution much greater,
probably, than any previous conjuncture than even the change from Hindu to Mohammedan masters, had
been able to create. The transition from Hindu to Mohammedan masters, had only changed the hands by
which the sword was wielded, and favours were dispensed; the machine of the government, still more the
texture of the society, underwent feeble alterations; and the civil part of the administration was, from
convenience, left almost wholly in the hands of the Hindus. A total change in the management of the
revenues more deeply affected the condition, individually and collectively, of the people of India, than it
is easy for the European reader to conceive. It was an innovation by which the whole property of the
country, and along with it the administration of justice, were placed upon a new foundation” (The History
of British India, Vol. III, p. 365).

78
In 1772 he instituted a five-year settlement, i.e. quinquennial settlement of land revenue
by the crude method of farming out estates to the highest bidders. Acting on the
presumption that the zamindars were mere tax-gatherer with no proprietary rights in the
settlement, no preference was given to them. In fact, in certain cases they were actually
discouraged from bidding.
In 1773 change were made in the machinery of revenue collection. The collectors who
had been found to be corrupt or were otherwise discovered indulging in private trade,
were replaced by the Indian Diwans. Six Provincial Councils were set up to supervise the
work of the Indian Diwans. The overall charge now rested with Committee of Revenue at
Calcutta. It comprised the Governor and the Council. The trend of Warren Hasting’s
thinking was towards centralization. He sought to concentrate all the administrative
functions into the hands of the committee at Calcutta.
The Quinquennial Settlement was a miserable failure and the peasants suffered greatly.
Most of the revenue farmers were mere speculators and had no permanent interest in the
land. Their only anxiety was to extort as much as possible from the cultivators by way of
land revenue. The officers of the East India Company themselves participated in the
bidding through their servants or banias. Even Warren Hastings was not free from this
temptation. There is the case of a grant registered in the name of a ten year old son of
Kantu Baboo, an Indian servant of Warren Hastings. Another evil of this settlement was
that the state demand was invariably very high. Extreme harshness was also used in the
collection of revenue. This system led to many unavoidable sequels. Many revenue
contractors fell in heavy arrears; many defaulters had to be arrested; even the ryots
deserted.
After the expiry of the Quinquennial Settlement in 1777, Warren Hasting reverted to the
system of Annual Settlement, though the basis of open auction to the highest bider was
retained. Preference was, however, given to the zamindars if their bids were high enough.
Some changes were made in the machinery of revenue collection in 1781. The collectors
were re-appointed in the districts* but were to have no power of assessment. The
Qanungos, too, were re-appointed. The Provincial Councils were abolished and all work
of supervision was concentrated in the hands of the Committee or Revenue at Calcutta.

* Warren Hastings could not work out his original idea of employing only Indian officers in the districts
and confining the Company’s servants to Culcutta. Penderal Moon maintains that all the ex-members of the
Provincial Council had to be provided with jobs and there were many fresh recommendations from London.
Thus, Warren Hastings was compelled to re-employ Company’s servants as “collectors” in the districts and
some as judges of Diwani Adalats.

79
One things is quite clear. Warren Hastings failed to devise a satisfactory system of
revenues settlement. His bias towards centralization in Calcutta stood in the way of
providing an effective system of land revenue collection. This prevented British officers
from acquiring any detailed knowledge about revenue matters. In 1782 Sir John Shore
declared that “the real state of the districts is now less known and the revenue less
understood than in 1774.” Warren Hastings left behind him “a dark trail of misery,
insurrection and famines”. How unsatisfactory the land revenue policy was is amply clear
from Cornwallis’s remark made in 1789 that one “third of the Company’s territory in
Hindustan is now jungle, inhabited only by wild beasts”. It was left to Cornwallis to
evolve a system of land revenue collection and a administration which even when riddled
with many defects, possessed at least one superiority, namely, it provided stability and
bore hallmark of permanence.
(iii) Judicial Reforms
Better success attended Warren Hasting’s efforts in the sphere of judicial reorganization.
Before his assumption of office, the judicial system in Bengal was summary and
unsatisfactory. It was closely linked to the system of revenue administration. The
zamindars decided civil and criminal cases and the system of arbitration was popular.
Verelst has vividly described some of the failings of the system thus: “Every decision is a
corrupt bargain with the highest bidder…. Trifling offenders are frequently loaded with
heavy demands and capital offences are often absolved by the venal judge”. The
interference of Englishmen or their agents in the interior of the country had made matters
worse; they very frequently meddled into the working of the native judicial courts and
sometimes even acted as judges. Since the acquisition of Diwani in 1765 the civil
jurisdiction had passed into the Company’s control and was exercised by Deputy Diwan.
But this was an ad hoc arrangement which could not be allowed to last indefinitely.
(a) Administration of Civil Justice: Warren Hastings turned his attention to the
problem of judicial reorganization and reform with some genuine earnestness. He
was keen that the framework of judicial administration should be patterned after the
Mughal model. In 1772, Diwani and Faujdari Adalats were set up at the district
level. The Diwani Adalat was presided over by the collector who was competent to
decode all civil cases including those concerning personal property, inheritance,
marriages, debts etc. In case of the Hindus the Hindu law was to apply; the Muslim
law applied to the Muslims. The Diwani Adalt could decide case involving sums up
to Rs. 500. Appeals lay to the Sadar Diwani Adalat Calcutta which was presided
over by the President and two members of the Supreme Council assisted by Indian
officers. In view of the rapid changes effected in revenue administration, certain
consequential modifications in the administration of justice, especially civil courts.
Later on, judicial powers previously exercised by the Six Provincial Councils were
transferred to Six Courts of Diwani Adalt, each presided over by a member of the

80
 Company’s Covenanted Civil Service. To make justice easily available to the people,
the number of these courts was raised to eighteen.
(b) Administration of criminal justice: District Faujdari, Adalats were presided over
by Indian officers who decided cases with the assistance officer who decided cases
with the assistance of Qazis and Muftis. The collector, who was always a European,
was however, authorized to exercise some control and supervision over the Faujdari
Adalats; more particularly , he was required to see that evidence was duly submitted
and weighed, that the verdict given was fair and impartial and announced in the open
court. The law followed in the Faujdari Adalats was the Muslim Law. Appeals from
the Faujdari Adalat lay to the Sadar Nizamat Adalat assisted by the Chief Quazi and
the Chief Mufti and three Maulvis. The President and Council supervised the
proceedings of this court.
As in case of civil administration, some corresponding changes were also made in the
sphere of criminal administration by Warren Hastings. The Sadar Nizamat Adalat
presided over by the Naib-Nazim was shifted to Murshidabad. To effectively bring
criminals to book, every district was provided with a Faujdar. Even this new experiment
was not much of a success. All the duties and power exercised by the Faujdar were
transferred to the judges of the district court. In the domain of criminal administration, we
witness one healthy development viz., these criminal courts were generally manned
Indians.
The Regulating Act of 1773 provided for the setting up of a Supreme Court at Calcutta
competent to try all “British subjects”. However in Calcutta and its subordinate factories,
this court exercised jurisdiction over all person. Indians or Europeans. Outside Calcutta,
complaints or suits against or between Indians could be heard by the said court only with
the consent of the parties. In the supreme Court, the English law was administered, while
in the Sadar Diwani Adalat, Sadar Nizamat Adalat and other courts at the district level,
cases were decided according to Muslim and Hindu laws. The jurisdiction of the Supreme
Court and other courts often clashed. This was highlighted by the Kasijora case (1779-
80). In fact, a dualism in the legal system was created which continued throughout the
Company rule in India.
Warren Hastings attempted to codify Muslim and Hindu laws. A translation of the Hindu
Code of Law in Sanskrit appeared in 1776 under the title of code of Gentoo Laws.
William Jones and Colebrooke published Coleborrke’s Digest of Hindu Law in 1791.
Attempts were also made to translate Fatwa-i-Alamgiri into English.
These reforms of Warren Hastings even when slow, erratic and insufficient, were
however significant as indicating a new shift. The traditional system of judicial
administration notwithstanding many of its glaring merits, was something incompatible
with the canons of British jurisprudence and, hence, could not be permitted indefinitely.

81
(iv) Commercial Reforms
Warren Hastings sought to clear the bottlenecks in the internal trade of Bengal. The
various customs house in the zamindaries were suppressed. Henceforth, only five
customs houses at Calcutta, Hughli, Murshidabad, Dacca and Patna were to be
maintained. The duties were lowered to 2½% payable by the merchants-Europeans and
Indians. He checked the misue of dastak or free passes signed by the Company’s officers
exempting from duties the goods of the servants of the Company indulging in private
trade. Steps were also taken to check the exploitation of the weavers by the Company’s
agents. Warren Hastings also made unsuccessful attempts to develop trade relations with
Bhutan and Tibet.
Summing up, the various measures adopted by Warren Hastings to reform administrative
machinery even when not comprehensive or always well-conceived did undoubtedly give
Bengal an administrative framework.

III. ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES UNDER LORD CORNWALLIS

During the administration of Lord Cornwallis (1786-1793) were effected many important
administrative changes which may truly be regarded as having given a steel-frame to
British administration in India. These changes were far-reaching and affected many
aspects of administration. More outstanding reforms pertain to the following important
spheres:
(i) Commerce.
(ii) Land revenue administration.
(iii) Judicial administration of the civil services.
(iv) Organization of the civil services.
In all these spheres, Lord Cornwallis has left behind a permanent mark. He, however, was
very much indebted to his predecessors, especially to Warren Hastings. His reforms could
not have provided a permanent administrative framework if the reforms introduced by
Warren Hastings were not simple enough to be easily modified in the light of new
experience acquired as a result of their working. Many of his successors, notably Lord
Wellesley (1798-1805), Lord Hasting (1813-23), Lord William Bentick (1828-35) and
Lord Dalhousie (1848-56) contributed significantly by improving upon some of the
reforms of Lord Cornwallis. That accounts for the fact that the British had achieved a
standard and strength in administrative efficiency that even the stormy winds of years
1857-58 could not seriously shake. The East India Company had built up a firm
administrative structure which was capable of tiding over any crisis. That makes Lord
Cornwallis’ administrative reforms even more remarkable because it was he who gave the
administrative machinery a definite form of which some features are found even today.

82
The acquisition of Diwani by the East India Company, brought about a transformation in
the very nature and character of the activities of the Company. Its original commercial
character was not suited to its ever-increasing political obligations. The predecessors of
Cornwallis failed to face successfully the challenge posed by the new situation. Both
Clive and Warren Hastings even when they at times displayed some enthusiasm and
keenness for reforms failed, in views of their liking for political intrigues, and because of
their own frequent lapses into venality and personal cupidity, to inspire confidence or a
sense of duty among their subordinates. They set no noble example for those working
under them. Cornwallis, was made of a different mettle. He, of course, lacked the
brilliance of Warren Hastings, but possessed some other traits which eminently fitted him
to complete an administrative superstructure on the foundations laid earlier by Clive and
Warren Hastings. Cornwallin’s main superiority lay in the fact that he was a man of
unimpeachable integrity. His incorruptibility was beyond reproach. A solder by
upbringing, he knew how to explicitly obey his superiors. Directives from England were
for him orders to be carried out fully and faithfully. “He was a public servant who upheld
national and not private tradition “He sought no revolutionary changes in the
administration though in practice some of his administrative measures were far-reaching.
While assessing his contribution to administrative organization let us not forget one fact
viz., various administrative experiments which the Company had tried since 1765 in view
of changing political complexion of the Company, had produced a wealth of valuable
data which stood him in good stead and made it possible for him to see the administrative
problems and its numerous issues more clearly and more comprehensively. Unlike his
predecessors, he did not have to grope in the dark. Hence his reforms were not mere
improvisation as was the case regarding some of the measures adopted by Clive and
Warren Hastings.
Cornwallis sought to introduce not entirely new principles of administration because his
powers were not unfettered. He had to follow the line of the Directors. Many of his
reforms, however, stemmed from his earnest desire that the Company should be better
equipped to carry out those responsibilities of direct administration which necessarily
followed from the extinction of the Dual System. Warren Hastings attempts were not
adequate or comprehensive enough, because they were not always sell-thought-out.
Experience had shown that many of these reforms were faulty. Many of these reforms
created new problems. Cornwallis, however, had to work within the existing framework.
Thus, as observed by Aspinall,” It is no disparagement of Cornwallis’s work to point out
that he completed what Hasting had begun. Many of the reforms ultimately introduced,
involved no new principles but certainly those principles “were now clearly stated and the
strength of the Home Government was used to enforce them.”
The administration of Lord Cornwallis, in many respects, constitutes a significant
landmark in the history of British administration in India. It ushered a new era in one
sense, because hence onward more attention and thought were expanded on the problems

83
appertaining to administration. Territorial expansion which till recently was the guiding
philosophy of the Company became somewhat muted not because the British had
forsaken their imperial ambitions but more because of their growing appreciation of the
basic fact that no durable empire could be possible unless it was provided with a durable
administrative foundation. Cornwallis’ reforms covered many areas. Now let us deal with
some of his more significant administrative reforms.
(i) Commercial Reforms
Because of the increasing political obligations of the Company, its commercial activity
had lately come to occupy a subordinate position in the thinking of many of its offices.
Cornwallis was fully conscious that the Company’s shareholders were still primarily
interested in adequate returns for their instruments. Moreover, he had been specifically
instructed at the time of his appointment that he must curb extravagance and cut down the
expenses of the administration. Economy appeared to the Directors an urgent necessity
and a crying need. Then the Company’s commercial system was plagued with corruption
of the grossest type. The warehouses of Calcutta, as observed by Cornwallis, were “a sink
of corruption and inequity.” The Company was outrageously cheated by its own servants
who had only one obsession, viz, to a mass as much of wealth as possible and that too as
quickly as possible. This intolerable state of affairs aroused Cornwallis righteous
indignation which at that time appears to have been somewhat shared by the Directors.
Cornwallis applied his reforming broom with confidence and determination. He wasted
no time in immediately attending to the problem of placing the commercial activities of
the Company on a sound and efficient footing. In this task, he was lucky to have secured
the devoted and enlightened services of Charles Grant who had considerable experience
in these matters.
In order to appreciate Cornwallis’ reforms in this sphere in their proper perspective, it
will not be out of place if you first become acquainted with some of the important
features of the Company’s commercial organisation as it existed before his assumption of
duties as the Governor-General of India. A branch of general administration looked after
the Company’s commerce. The “Company’s investment” originally consisted of silk,
wool, cotton goods and indigo, saltpeter and raw cotton were added later. Till 1756 specie
imported from England partly paid for all these goods. Plassey brought about a major
change. Thenceforth, a portion of the revenue of Bengal was diverted for the purpose of
buying these goods which were exported to England as a part of the “Company’s
investments “were looked after by the Board of Trade at Calcutta. This Board had eleven
members. The Supreme Council exercised some vague supervision over it. The
investments though controlled by the Board were actually in the hands of the Company’s
servants designated as “Commercial Residents” who were stationed at different place in
Bengal.’ The bulk of these “investment” were procured by a series of contracts with these
‘Residents’ who were responsible for such share of the investments as might be allotted
to them. The ‘Residents’ fully exploited their erstwhile official position to their own

84
advantage. They indulged in very conceivable from of fraud. They mercilessly oppressed
the weavers and fraudulently cheated them of their wages. To aggravate the problem,
even the members of the Board had taken up these contracts. They secured their goods
from contractors making full use of their official position. Their purchases were generally
secured at very low prices but were supplied to the Company at inflated prices. Profits
thus made by the Company’s servants were large. The Directors of the Company’s goods
when sold in England fetched lower prices whereas the merchandise exported by the
servants of the Company were readily sold at higher prices. In a way, the Directors
themselves were to blame for much of the corruption. They had themselves connived at
this practice of illegal trade in which nearly all its servants were engaged. There was no
stigma attached to this illegal trade. Because salaries paid to the Company’s servant were
low, the Directors themselves displayed no concern about this illicit trade. But when they
found that their own interests were suffering, they had to do something in the matter.
In 1786, the strength of the Board of Trade was reduced from eleven to five and its
working was definitely brough under the control of the Supreme Council. A member of
the Council was also made its president. Cornwallis who had been specially instructed to
end corruption in the commercial branch of administration acted with firmness and
resolution. He initiated a searching investigation into the conduct of the company’s
servants including the members of the Boards. His inquiry revealed a sordid state of a
affairs. He found that corruption had permeated in all the ranks of the Company’s
servants. Even the members of the Board were not immune from it. Legal proceedings
were immediately started against all those suspected of corruption. Some senior members
of the Company’s commercial establishment as also some members of the Board were
punished. This stern action had a wholesome impact. It served as a deterrent for others.
Cornwallis, left to himself, might have introduced some radical charge in the working of
the Company’s commercial system, but as one to whom obedience to the superiors
appeared a religious duty. He was not unconscious of the unwillingness of the Directors
to pay adequate salaries to their servants. It was a formidable hurdle in his way. Hence his
reforms were clearly aimed at making the best of a very bad situation. Nevertheless, he
adopted worthwhile charges. The first was to separate the commercial service of the
Company from its political service. All the servants of the Company were given the
option to choose one of the two branches of the administration. Another useful step was
taken when he issued a new commercial code. By it, “investments” of the Company were
adequately secured. This was accomplished by adopting the “agency system’. According
to this system, the ‘Commercial residents’ of the Company’s various factories were made
responsible to the Board for such share of the investments as might be allocated to them.
These Residents arranged prices and made advances to manufactures of weavers and
were also required to receive manufactured goods. They were to be compensated
adequately by means of commission calculated on the basis of their share of investment.
Private trade, though not positively prohibited, was certainly discouraged. This system

85
was far from being a perfect one, yet it showed satisfactory results before long. It arrested
some of the more flagrant abuses. By defining the duties of the ‘Residents’, some
protection was also provided to the weavers and manufacturers who previously were
utterly helpless against the rapacity of the unscrupulous servants of the Company.
Though Cornwallis left much that should have been done, yet he had provided a direction
to the Company’s commercial policy.
(ii) Changes in Land Revenue Administration
The reorganization of the Company’s commercial activities constitutes only a small
portion of Cornwallis’s work. Though valuable and desirable it did not so markedly affect
the fortunes of the inhabitants of Bengal. His other reforms with which this section is
primarily concerned had a mush wider impact. The ultimate welfare of millions of the
people of Bengal depended upon them. Of these the most important is his Permanent
Settlement of Bengal.
As regards the land Revenue Administration, the period between 1765-1793 is
characterized by many experiments. The Company adopted the method of trial and error
and in this process it attempted many experiments, most of which proved faulty. It was
left to Cornwallis to evolve a system which had the stamp of permanence. Even thought it
was not free from many serious defects, it had one great advantage. It ended uncertainty.
It need not be overstressed that the bulk of the revenue in India came from land. The
happiness of the people of Bengal depended on how it was assessed and collected.
As already mentioned. Warren Hastings had pursued the policy of centralising the Land
Revenue administration. This policy had many demerits. It deprived the European
officer’s opportunity to acquire knowledge about revenue matters; it in no way lightened
the burden of the Ryots. The institution of European Collectors which had been abolished
in 1773 had to be resurrected but these “Collectors” were given hardly any powers. In
1786 another scheme was formulated. It marked the beginning of decentralization.
According to it, the province of Bengal was divided into thirty-five districts: in 1787 the
number was brought down to twenty-three. Each district was deemed as a regular fiscal
unit under a Collector who was henceforth to become fully responsible for the settlement
and collection of land revenue. The Provincial Diwans were done away with. The
Committee of Revenue constituted in 1781 was reorganised as a Board of Revenue. A
member of the Governor-General’s Council was to become its president. This Board
controlled and advised the Collectors and had the final sanctioning authority with regard
to the from of settlement. In July 1786, a new office of an officer designated as Chief
Saristadar was instituted. This officer was required to bring the revenue records, hither to
the property of Qanungos, under the control of government, so that he officers of the
company should be able to be acquire necessary knowledge about land tenure and
settlement. The settlement of course continued to be based on an annual basis. This
system was maintained till 1790. Thus the period 1765-85 of the administration of the

86
land revenue in Bengal by the Company’s servants witnessed a steady “progress from the
employment of untested theories to the establishment of an administration based on much
solid knowledge.”7 Nonetheless, no firm or final step was taken till 1793 when
Cornwallis brushing aside numerous objections and introduced what is known as the
Permanent Settlement of Bangal.
Cornwallis, himself a member of the landed aristocracy of England, was naturally
interested in the problem of land revenue administration and its collection. The intricacies
of the Indian system were formidable. Though some of the officers of the Company had
delved deep into the finest details of the Indian system of land revenue, yet there were
certain marked divergences in their opinions about the status and position of the
zamindars. These zamindars under the Mughal rule were rent collectors who because of
the weakness of the central authority had tended to become hereditary, John Shore held
that the Zamindars were the proprietors of land and could be called upon to pay only land
tax, whereas Grant maintained that the ownership of land vested with the government
which was free to effect any settlement with any one, be they zamindars or tenants. This
controversy at times became quite exciting. Shore’s views were favoured by the
Directors. Cornwallis though originally inclined towards Shore’s interpretation ultimately
veered round to the opinion of Grant and in 1793, he decided upon a permanent
settlement with the Zamindars. He rejected Shore’s contention that the settlement should
be effected for a periods of ten years. A ten year settlement, according to Shore, would do
away with the evils of annual assessment, besides providing adequate assurances to the
zamindars that the settlement would not be for a short duration and would not prevent
them from making capital investment on land. Cornwallis, however, stood by his
determination and decision unflinchingly and on March 22, 1793, the decennial
settlement i.e., ten-year settlement was declared permanent.
The Permanent Settlement created a limited proprietary right in the land in the zamindars.
All rights of the state in the nature of Nazrana and permission to sell fees were given up.
Magisterial powers were taken away from the zamindars. They were left with no police
work. The state demand was fixed at 89 per cent of the rental, leaving II per cent with the
zamindars as their share for their trouble and responsibility. So long as the zamindars
made the payment to the Government in time, they were left free in their relation with
their tenants. If they did not make the payment to the state in time, a part of their land was
to be disposed of to recover the amount due to the state.
Upon this famous Permanent Settlement critics have expressed diametrically opposite
views. According to Marshman, “It was a bold, brave and wise measure. Under the
general influence of this territorial charter which for the first time created indefeasible
rights and interests in the soil, population has increased, cultivation has extended and a

7
Dodwell—The Cambridge History of India, Vol. V, P. 432.

87
gradual improvement has been visible in the habits and comforts of the people.”8 On the
other hand, Holmes has characterised the Permanent Settlements as “a sad blunder. The
inferior tenants derived from it no benefit whatsoever. The zamindars, again, failed to pay
their rent charges and their estate were sold for the benefit of the government.”9 It is
rather interesting that even a distinguished Indian scholar of wide administrative
experience R.C. Dutt was almost rhapsodic in complimenting Cornwallis for the
Permanent Settlement when he observed, “If the prosperity and happiness of a nation be
the criterion of wisdom and success, Lord Cornwallis’ permanent Settlement of 1793 is
the wisest and most successful measure which the British nation had ever adopted in
India. “To Dutt this settlement appeared to be “the one act of British nation within the
century and a half of their rule in India which has most effectively safeguarded the
economic welfare of the people” It seems that in the eyes of Mr. Dutt the people were the
newly created zamindars and not the people” It seems that in the eyes of Mr. Dutt the
people were the newly created zamindars and not the hard working and rack-rented ryots.
The fact that his family was one of the beneficiaries of this act of Cornwallis explains
why he was so uninhibited in offering this profuse tribute to Lord Cornwallis. For a more
balance appreciation, let us now study its merits and demerits.
Its Merits: The Permanent Settlement in effect was not an unmixed blessing. It
undoubtedly gave fixity of tenure to the zamindars so long as they paid their dues to the
state. The evils of recurring assessments were also done away with. The temptation not to
cultivate land on the eve of the assessment was removed. The exchequer made a
substantial saving on the expenses previously incurred on repeated settlements. The
zamindars were also encouraged to make capital investments on their zamindar is because
they were now assured that all additional gains accruing from these investments were
exclusively theirs. It no doubt boosted agriculture. It has to be conceded that much of the
future prosperity of Bengal was greatly due to this settlement. The zamindars also stood
to gain in many other ways. They had no longer to pay any fines on accession; neither
were they now required to secure the prior permission of the government if they wanted
to sell their holdings; in addition, they were no longer encumbered with the responsibility
of looking after law and order within their zamindaris. Then, the British Raj acquired
greater stability because this new class of zamindars was entirely their creation and they
now had a vested interest in the continuance of British rule. Above all, the Permanent
Settlement ended uncertainty.
Dr. Tara Chand maintains that the Permanent Settlement conferred the greatest benefits
on the Government. So far as the financial part was concerned, the land revenue demand
was fixed at the highest pitch that had ever been reached. The share of the state was fixed
at 89% of the estimated rent of the land which left only 11% to the landlord for his duties

8
Marshman – History of India, vol. II, p. 35.
9
Holmes – History of India Mutiny, p. 12.1

88
connected with the collection of revenue. The Government was saved from the
fluctuation of its income and assured a certain steady and ample revenue for both its
commercial and administrative needs. While the revenue demand on the lands already
under cultivation was fixed, the Government could still look forward to the increase in its
income with the extension of cultivation. There was the additional financial advantage
arising from the abolition of the entire revenue-collecting machinery consisting of
Tehsildars, Quanungoes, Patwaris and other revenue officers. As regards the political
advantages, the zamindars possessed great powers during the Mughal rule. In addition to
their duty of revenue collection, they exercised magisterial and executive authority. For
all practical purposes, they enjoyed the opportunism of sovereignty in their respective
spheres. They were ordinarily inclined to be intractable and became contumacious and
rebellious under the governments. Cornwallis struck a bargain. The political powers were
taken away from them and in return they were endowed with unlimited powers of
ownership of land which had not belonged to them in the past and of the enhancement of
rent at their pleasure. Their political authority and power of creating trouble disappeared,
but their economic powers over the peasantry were enormously increased. The two
parties to the bargain settled down to a period of peaceful cooperation, one exercising
political authority, the other economic powers and both preying upon and oppressing the
tiller of the soil (History of the Freedom Movement in India, Vol.I.PP.295-6).
Its Demerits: Let us now look at the other side. The immediate impact of the Permanent
Settlement on some of the older families was disastrous.Many of the old and
distinguished— almost semi-royal families—like those of Nadiya, Vishnupur, Rajshahi
and Dinajpur, suffered heavily, because these families were not able to pay government
dues which were certainly very heavy, if not excessive. Their zamindar is were sold to
others who possessed ready cash. This brough on the rural scene new families of
moneylenders, merchants and other rich urbanites. With some honorable exceptions, like
the families of the laws, and the tagores, these new zamindars had no roots in the soil and
behaved in an irresponsible manner. Their primary interest lay in exacting the maximum
of rents out of their tenants. They were not interested in agriculture as such. Thus,
unmitigated hardship on the tenants or ryots were inflicted. By one stroke of pen, those
tenants who had cultivated lands for generations were thrown at the everchanging and
unpredictable mercy of the new zamindars. The ryots were the greatest sufferers.
Overnight their tenures had become precarious. Above all, they were constantly exposed
to the ever-increasing demands of rents, perquisites, etc. They had become rootless. There
was much wealth in the country but it was inequitably distributed. It made the new
zamindars richer and the ryots poorer. That accounts for the glaring disparity in the
economic condition of the people in those areas where the Permanent Settlement was
introduced. By this Settlement, the future interests of the state were also unwittingly
sacrificed, because government had no share in the increased agricultural prosperity of
the country. That explains why the Government of Bengal was perennially afflicted with

89
recurring deficits even though the province itself was the richest in the whole of India.
The development of that province with regard to public works was also severely
handicapped. Even though it be a moot point yet there have been many distinguished and
experienced British administrators of India who have held that it was this Settlement
which was mainly responsible for the regular recurrence of famines in Bengal and its
contiguous areas. Finally, this Settlement introduced a new element which had far-
reaching sociological and economic consequences. It damaged the integrity of the
traditional communal life of the village andthe fact that land could now be sold by the
government if the zamindars failed to discharge their financial liabilities to the state the
rural economy suffered a very upsetting blow. Land had come to acquire a new meaning
and a new value. The land hunger increased. It attracted the unscrupulous moneylenders
to the village who heartlessly exploited the royts. Absentee landlordism was at a
premium. Thus, the Permanent Settlement created more problems than it sought to solve.
(iii) Judicial Reorganization
In this sphere again, you will find that Cornwallis was heavily indebted to Warren
hastings. Luckily, Cornwallis could retain the services of Sir William Jones whose ripe
and invaluable experience as a judicial officer, his deep knowledge about Indian laws and
institutions and his consuming passion for oriental learning placed at the disposal of
Cornwallis a fund of useful information and experience which stood him in good stead in
the work of reorganizing the judicial system in India. His judicial reforms may be better
studied if we separate the administration of civil justice from that of criminal justice. The
latter will also include some discussion of the police and jail reconciliation.
(a) Civil Justice: You will recall that the Sadar Diwani Adalat had been reconstituted
inApril 1780under the authority of the Governor General in Council.This did not
improve matters because theGovernor-General-in Council had far too many
preoccupations to be able to attend the work of administering civil justice which
could be both monotonous and at times quite exacting because of its technical nature
which required a special type of professional training. In June 1787, Lord Cornwallis
re-organized the institution of the collectorship. The number of Collectors was to be
reduced. The Collectors were once again made responsible to the Indians because it
followed the traditional Indian pattern according to which collection of land revenue,
administration of civil justice and magisterial duties, were the responsibility of one
officer. This excessive concentration of functions made the Collector almost a
dictator in the districts. It was not conducive too expeditious administration of justice
because the multifarious duties a collector now became responsible for revenue work
only, this necessitated a wholesale reorganization of the machinery of administration
of justice because the multifarious duties a collector was required to perform left no
time to attend to this rather laborious and time-consuming work. Hence a reversal
took placein 1793 when the Collector was denuded of all judicial obligations. As the
collector now became responsible for revenue work only, this necessitated a
wholesale reorganization of the machinery of administration of justice, both criminal

90
 and civil. For purpose of administering civil justice, Cornwallis established a
hierarchy of courts. As the top was the Sadar Diwani Adalat or the Chief Civil Court
in Calcutta, consisting of the Governor-General and the Council and assisted by
Qaziul-Quzat. i.e., Chief Qazi, two Muftis and two Pandits. It was to hear appeals, it
also exercised power of supervision over the courts subordinate thereto. No appeal
would be entertained by this Court, unless the subject of dispute involved property or
money worth Rs. 1,000 or more. Below this Court were the Provincial Courts
established at the important cities of Patna, Dacca, Murshidabad and Calcutta. These
Provincial Courts were generally given appellate powers, but in certain cases they
could also exercise original jurisdiction. Each of these Courts had three European
judges, all members of the Covenated Civil Service, three assessors and a Qazi, a
Mufti and a Pandit. The Qazi and Mufti provided the necessary information about
Muslim Law whereas the Pandit advised European judge assisted by Indian
assessors. These twenty odd district Courts and three City Courts in Patna, Dacca
and Murshidabad exercised full jurisdiction over all civil cases of every description
including revenue cases which were previously heard by the Mal Adalats which had
been abolished by Regulation II of the Cornwallis Code 1793. These District Courts,
however, could not hear cases in which Europeans were involved, as the Supreme
Court which had been established by the Regulating Act alone had jurisdiction over
them. Next in the hierarchy were the two subordinate courts called the Registrar’s
and the Munsiff’s courts. The Registrars could try cases up to Rs.200, whereas the
Munsiffs could hear only those suits where the sum involved was Rs.50 Appeals
from both these lower courts lay with the District Court.
The reorganization of the administration of civil justice clearly brings out two
important features. One was that the judicial work of a civil nature was considerably
decentralized. Secondly, in this entire hierarchy there was no room for the Indians.
This feature actually plagued all the administrative measure introduced by
Cornwallis for he had a very low opinion about the integrity and ability of the
Indians.
(b) Criminal Justice: Cornwallis was as much appealed by the corruption in the
administration of criminal justice as he had found it in the commercial sphere. When
he took over the duties of the Governor-General of India, he had some doubts as to
the extent to which the Company was competent to interfere with the matters
pertaining to the Nizamat. He, therefore, proceed with his reforms in this sphere
rather cautiously and only when he had studied the problem comprehensively enough
that he finally introduced some sweeping reforms which will be discussed a little
later. As an ad hoc measure in 1787, he endowed the Collectors with magisterial
powers. By 1790, his ideas and plans about criminal reorganization had taken a final
shape and were embodied in his famous Minute running into one hundred and five
pages dated, 3rd December. This study had convinced him that the East India
Company had full authority to interfere in the Nizamat administration. He, however,
held the view that ancient practices, usages, and institutions should be disturbed as

91
 little as was compatible with efficiency. He was keen that the standard of criminal
administration must be raised; to him many of the Indian usages appeared contrary to
canons of justice and equity and consequently must be swept aside as quickly as
possible. All his ideas were ultimately embodied in what is known as the famous
Cornwallis Code of May 1793. This is a comprehensive document which contains
regulations numbering forty-eight.
Lord Cornwallis proceeded with his reorganization with zeal and sincerity of purpose.
Though this Cornwallis Code in many ways was an attempt at redefining more clearly the
existing system, it also contained some new features. As a matter of fact, it was an earnest
endeavor to put the entire administrative structure in India on a sound base. As we are
here concerned mainly with those aspects which had a bearing on the administration of
criminal justice, we shall only deal with that aspect. Cornwallis as in case of civil
administration, also established a hierarchy of courts for the administration of criminal
justice. Muhammad Raza Khan, the Deputy Nawab or Naib Nazim, who still exercised
criminal authority was divested of all his powers. The headquarters of the SadarNizamat
Adalat were shifted from Murshidabad to Calcutta. This court was made the highest court
in the hierarchy for the administration of criminal justice. It was to meet once a week and
was the highest Court of Appeal for criminal matters. This Court was authorised to
suggest all such propositions for consideration and sanction of the Governor-General-in-
Council which it thought would improve the administration of criminal justice. As in case
of civil justice, district was made the basic unit of criminal administration. In the reforms
of Cornwallis, we again come across his preference to make district as a unit of
administration and in this manner, he established a pattern of administration which we
find in our country even today. Each district was to have a sessions judge who was to be a
member of the Convenanted Civil Service. As no Indian could become a member of this
service, Cornwallis’ strong prejudice to exclude Indians from all position of trust and
responsibility by this device was given a widened application.
Cornwallis brough about certain important charges in the laws and procedures to be
adopted in these courts. Though he refrained from introducing wholesale British laws, we
find that some indigenous practices were substantially modified. He made certain changes
in the Muslim Law which was still generally followed in the Faujdari, i.e., criminal
courts. The practice of multilation was replaced by long terms of imprisonment. Law of
evidence was also modified in many significant ways. According to the Muslim Law, any
evidence tendered by an ‘infidel’ was considered invalid. This discriminatory practice
was dropped. Restrictions were also placed upon the right of the relatives of a slain
person to bargain for a pardon with the murderer of their relatives.
Criticism of his Judicial Reforms
Nobody can deny that Cornwallis provided India with courts, laws and procedures which
is many respects were a great improvement on what was found in this country before. He,
however, overlooked one very important aspect of the problem. He introduced far too

92
many rules and regulations of procedure and an equally large number of laws based on
the western concept of jurisprudence. With all these innovations the Indians were utterly
unfamiliar. This made the administration of justice far too technical. Most of these new
laws and procedures were beyond the comprehension of illiterate litigants. This created a
paradise for lawyers. Furthermore, these new measures militated against speedy justice.
Long delays were very common. This situation was further aggravated by the large
number of suits that were filed before the innumerable courts. Many issues which could
have been normally settled at the village level by the village panchayats etc. were now
taken too these newly established courts. There was certainly rush of litigation. The
existing courtscould not cope with the pressure. During a period of nine years from 1793-
1802, the district court while able to dispose of as many as 8,298 cases, still found that
there was a backlog of file, when they had already cleared 342,184 cases. Thus even
when we must compliment Corn Wallis that his reforms checked the oppressions of the
revenue collectors and other officials and prevented violence, we cannot at the same time
close our eyes that these very reforms “encouraged the more subtle oppression of the
moneylender and the lawyer; and from their insistence upon formal evidence they
increased the difficulty of suppressing organized dacoity.”10 Lastly, the greatest charge
that can be legitimately made against Cornwallis’ reforms is that in his system the sons of
the soil found no accommodation. Such a systematic and wholesale exclusion of Indians
had never happened before in this country. Even when we had the misfortune to be
repeatedly dominated by alien races, alien dynasties and alien rulers. In a way, it was
“almost without parallel in the history of imperialism.” Some discrimination by a foreign
rule may be justified and even tolerated, but Cornwallis assigned absolutely no position
of trust and responsibility to the Indians. They were totally excluded from all those
offices in the government which called for any degree of responsibility. Cornwallis’
prejudice against the Indians stemmed from his illogical conviction that Indians were
absolutely untrustworthy. This systematic exclusion of Indian was indeed very degrading
for the Indians as it was “calculated to debase rather than uplift the people fallen under
the Company’s dominion11. Veritably, it created a gulf between the Indians and the
British. It made inter-racial understanding difficult. It sowed the seeds of mutual distrust
which bedevilled the future course of Indo-British relationship. One of the earlier
demands of the Indian National Congress that there should be Indianisation of services
seems quite reasonable because no nation can develop or advance unless its nationals
have the freedom to learn by administrative experience by erring and that is not possible
if people are not entrusted with responsibility. The exclusion of Indians from all the
offices of responsibility also made administration far too expensive; it contributed to
some administrative inefficiency also because Indians employed at lower levels knowing
that they would never be promoted had no incentive to develop any great sense of

10
Thompson and Garratt : Rise and Fulfilment of British Rule in India (Indian Edition); p. 177.
11
Aspinall : Cornwallis in Bengal, p. 174.

93
responsibility. Lack of responsibility bred corruption and irresponsibility. Multiplication
in the numbers of European officer was not the remedy. No imperial administration,
however efficient, can last long if it does not trust the natives of the country.
(iv) Police and jail Reorganization
Cornwallis in the field of police administration also introduced some improvements. The
East India Company was primarily concerned with the security of its commercial and
imperial interests in India; it showed scant interest in the problem of maintaining law and
order in the general sense. The chief responsibility for maintaining law and order was
mainly the concern of the zamindars. In April 1781, Warren Hastings replaced the
existing system and invested the British judges of the Diwani courts with the authority of
arrest and commitment. Police regulations farmed after 1782 enjoined upon the
Magistrates to appoint thanadars whenever the need of maintaining law and order
necessitated it. All these perfunctory attempts at police reorganization were of no great
value. It was again left to Cornwallis to undertake certain reforms which instituted a new
system which with some modifications from time to time, constituted the base on which
the police organization in India rests even to the present time. According to the police
Regulations published on 7thDecember, 1792, the zamindars were compelled to disband
their armed constabulary. A new police force was created. This force was placed under
the control of the English Magistrates. For purposes of maintaining law and order, a
district was sub-divided into thanas, comprising an area of approximately four hundred
square miles. Each thana was under the charge of a daroga appointed by the district
magistrate. Each daroga had some constables under him. The daroga was paid a
commission of 10% on the value of the stolen property recovered by him. These
regulations of 1792 were confirmed in the Cornwallis Code with one important
amendment. The police were made liable for any acts done in their official capacity. This
police re-organization as undertaken by Cornwallis was certainly better than what existed
before, yet it was not an efficient system and had to be changed subsequently in certain
important details.
Cornwallis was also responsible for introducing certain wholesome changes in the
administration of jails. By a Regulation of 3rdDecember, 1790, the management and
control of the jails was taken over from the Indian officers and made the responsibility of
the European magistrates. Some gross abuses with regard to the controlling of the
prisoners were removed. Some new jails were built. More emphasis was placed on the
government’s responsibility to look after the health and morals of the prisoners.
(v) Organization of the Civil Service
That the servants of the Company were corrupt was something about which there were no
two opinions. And this corruption permeated all ranks. As you will recall, even
responsible officers of the Company like Clive and Warren Hastings were not immune
from it. It was difficult to find to an office who was honest. Almost every servant of the

94
Company was interested in feathering his own nest. To accumulate as much of wealth as
possible within the shortest possible time was a universal craving among the Company’s
servants. The Directors of the Company were fully conscious of all-pervading corruption,
but they perhaps intentionally took no steps to check it. In a way they were responsible
for it and even encouraged it. Their outlook was dominated by one overriding
consideration, namely, to wrest maximum profits out of their investments. They,
therefore, deliberately followed a policy of giving low salaries to their servants for they
knew it quite well that India offered innumerable opportunities to their servants for
making money by other means. Their approach was practical and dictated by enlightened
self-interest. They knew it was difficult to prevent servants from carrying on private
trade. That was too chronic an affliction to be cured. So where was the fun of paying their
servants generously. The low salaries offered by the Company were, however,
supplemented with handsome commission paid on the collection of revenue. The
Directors connived at private trade. With income pouring in from three different sources
(i.e., salary, commission and private trade), many servants of the Company had made big
fortunes. Let me cite the case of a British Resident at Banaras. He waspaid a monthly
salary of Rs. 1,000 but his total earning during one year along amounted to more than
four lakhs. However, the servants of the Company still grumbled. They complained that
no pension awaited them on their retirement and thus, they justified their attempt to look
around for supplementary sources of income. The Directors had no serious objection to
private trade being carried on by their servants so long as this trade did not affect their
interests. Being rather narrow in their outlook, the Directors believed the lower salaries to
their servants would reduce the cost of running their Indian administration. This made
corruption universally rampant. Cornwallis was greatly disturbed at it. He drew the
attention of the Directors are under the name of some relation or friend deeply engaged in
commerce and by their influence becoming the most dangerous enemies of the
Company’s interests” He took up the problem of cleansing the services seriously. He
succeeded where Clive and Warrer Hastings had failed. By his own integrity, honesty and
sincerity of purpose, he set a noble example of his subordinates. He proved a stern enemy
of all kinds of corruption, Jobbery, patronage, favouritism etc. Many sinecure offices
were swept off. For the prevailing practice of granting commission to the servants of the
Company, he substituted liberal salaries. Salaries of Company’s high servants were raised
from Rs. 300 a month, to Rs. 15,000. They were also entitled to a nominal commission on
collections on the basis of the amount collected rather than upon the length of their
service. The total additional expenditure hardly amounted to 2½ lakhs per annum. Except
for a house rent allowance of Rs. 150 per month, they were forbidden to receive any other
perquisites and allowances. They were also disallowed from carrying on any type of
private trade. Cornwallis tried to engender a sense of responsibility among all the
company’s servants. He even expected the members of the Board of Revenue to observe
the new decorum, the rules of service prescribed. He effectively curbed the ills of
patronage. He firmly rejected all type of requests and solicitations from all quarters. No

95
friend or relative or any one in any high position was to be employed under the company
unless he possessed the requisite qualifications. Cornwallis displayed his strength of
character when he refused to provide a job to one Mr. Ritso whose name had been
recommended by this sovereign. His determination paid rich dividends. The morale of the
Company’s servants rose high; administrative purity and efficiency followed quickly.
Thus, Cornwallis had an important contribution in making the future Indian Civil Service
the real “steel frame” on which the British Empire in India rested solidly and securely for
such a long time. “The covenanted services of the Company from the date assumed a new
aspect”
The purification of the civil service unfortunately did not improve the prospects of the
Indians who as stated earlier were not given any position of trust and responsibility in the
administration. Racial discrimination was the dominant feature of Cornwallis’
administration. It was grounded in Cornwallis’ firm belief that Indian were inefficient and
dishonest. So all responsible posts must go to the Europeans. He did not mince his words
and expressed himself with brutal candidness when he wrote to the Court of Directors
thus; “I think it must be universally admitted that without a large and well regulated body
of Europeans, our hold of these valuable dominions must be very insecure.” This
discrimination against the sons of the country was confirmed in the Character Act of
1793, which stated that “all vacancies happening in any of the offices, places of
employment in the civil line of the company’s service in India should, subject to certain
specified restrictions, be filled from among the Company’s civil servants.” Hardly any
greater injustice could have ben done to Indians! British rule remained a foreign rule in
all respects. Never before were so completely ignored in their own country as far as their
employment in high position in the government was concerned. It was an injustice of the
harshest type. It rankled in the minds of the Indians. It was this incurable cancer which
made any lasting understanding between India and Great Britain impossible. It was in one
way a blessing in disguise. It sharpened national sentiment which ultimately enabled
India to win her independence.
Dr. Tara Chand writes, “Cornwallis erected the edifice of a system of government under
which India came to be ruled over by Britain for the next hundred and fifty years. The
new administrative system was based on two principles, vis., perpetuation of the wealth
of the subject for the benefit of the people of the ruling class”. (History of the Freedom
Movement in India, Vol. I. p.309).

96
Selected Readings

1. P.E. Roberts : History of British India, Chapter XIX, pp.220-236.

Chapter pp. 158-160; Chapter XV , 167-168; 171-
172.
2. Majumdar, Raychaudhary : An Advanced History of India: Part III: Chapter VIII
& Dutta pp.790-798.
3. Thompson & Garratt : Rise and Fulfilment of British Rule in India : (Indian
Edition):Book III; Chapter II, pp.190-197.
4. P. Spear : The Oxford History of Modern India : 1740-1947 Book
IV pp.116-127; Chapter 2 pp. 32-33; Chapter V, pp.
57- 61; Chapter VII ; pp. 05-94.
5. Sarkar & Dutta : Modern Indian History : Vol. II. Chapter VIII; pp.359-
391.
Supplementary Readings

1. A. Aspinall : Cornwallis in Bengal : (Manchester University Press,

1931)

97
 ADMINISTRATIVE REORGANIZATION (1765-1857)
Part II (1793-1857)

Introduction
In this lesson we shall discuss some of the changes introduced in the administrative set up
of British India during the period between 1793 and 1857. A mere description of the
various administrative changes would not be adequate unless we first understand the
rationale and logic behind these changes. It is interesting to note that most of these
changes were preceded by a shift in the British outlook on Indian problems. Between
1764-1856 one clearly sees three distinguishing ideas or tendencies, viz., “Conservative”,
“Liberal Tory” and “Radical”. All these trends seem to have contributed significantly to
the shaping of the attitudes of the British rulers to the administrative problems of India.
The “Conservatives” were in favour of retaining the Mughal system of administration
with minor modifications. The “Liberal Tories” wanted to strike a golden mean between
the traditional and the occidental concept of administration. The “Radicals” wanted to
remodel the administration entirely on western lines and to start from a clean slate.
Though no sweeping generalization is possible, in can roughly be said that the
“Conservative” point of view ruled supreme in the period between 1764-1818, the
“Liberal Tory” approach between 1818-1828, and the “Radical” attitude in the years
between 1828-1856. The Conservative attitude was shaped by two vital considerations:
(i) the need to erect an administrative structure which would give stability to the country;
(ii) the inherent strength of Indian institutions could provide such a stability. Thus
protagonists of this school thought that both these objectives could be easily and
satisfactorily achieved by restoring the administration along traditional lines. However, it
would not be entirely correct to say that they advocated the maintenance of status quo
along with all its anomalies. Even Conservatives like Warren Hastings and Cornwallis
could not accept the existing Muslim Criminal Law in its entirety and the methods of
administering justice which appeared too uncivilized to them. Yet they would not dare to
remodel the entire structure along western pattern. Apart from their faith in the intrinsic
value and the inherent strength of the Indian institutions, they were “acutely conscious of
the danger of provoking a violent reactions by unwise interference or hasty innovations”.
Thus in the period of conservative administration, the British were just “old Mughals writ
large”. The failure of this policy led to the rise of the “Liberal Tory” approach. The
leaders of this school were mostly administrators like Metcalf, Munro, Malcolm and
Elphinstone, who because of their long and varied experience of Indian administration
were better qualified to discover the defects in the existing and traditional structure. They
were inclined to, favour the introduction of western reforms and innovations, but only if
these led to the solidarity of the existing structure. Thus they sought a cautious blending
of the old and the new. This hesitant approach was dismissed by the “Radicals” who

98
advocated bold innovations. These “Radicals” honestly believed that the static Indian
civilization must give way to the more virile western culture and there could be no real
compromise between these two. Lord Dalhousie was the best representative of this school
of thought.
The administrative system established by Lord Cornwallis served the purpose of
consolidating the British hold upon India. However, there were a number of shortcomings
in this system. It was unable - to give India a modern code of law. The eminent
orientalist, Sir William Jones, was making serious researches into the laws of the country.
Yet no definite code had emerged as yet. The judicial machinery of Cornwallis thus
remained imperfect. Similarly, despite his most sincere efforts to improve the civil
services he had done little for the low paid Indians in the lowest services. Moreover,
exclusion of Indians from the higher services gave the administration a foreign colour.
European officials remained far from the people, their needs and problems.
The Cornwallis system with all its merits and demerits remained intact for a long time.
Any considerable departure from the established system was considered a sacrilege by the
subsequent British rulers and administrators for many years to come. Even when some of
the glaring defects of the system became apparent, utmost caution was exercised in
adopting remedial measures. We shall now consider the changes effected in some of the
important branches of the administration.
Judicial System
It was the judicial system which created a number of problems. The rulers were ignorant
of the laws of the land. The litigants did not know the language used in the courts. Most
of the judges, too, were ignorant of the languages of the people. Such a system could
hardly bring justice to the common man. The complicated court procedures caused
unusual delay in the speedy disposal of the cases. In such circumstances the ignorant and
illiterate litigants were driven into the arms of professional lawyers, who began to thrive
in the mess of legal complications.
As regards the absence of any code of law, the resolutions of 1793 and the regulations of
1790 had done something to amend what seemed to be the "greatest deficiencies of the
existing system”. Little change, however, was brought about in the existing law. Things
were improved a little by defining the qualifications of the Indian interpreters of the law,
who were attached to the various courts. But Cornwallis did not consider it was to effect
any great innovation in the existing system.
The Permanent Settlement had led to many evil consequences. The efforts made to
prevent the oppression of tenants and ryots led only to the complete blocking of the
courts of justice. The attempts made to realise the revenue resulted in the frequent sales of
estates. There was unprecedented increase in the business before the courts.

99
Sir John Shore adopted two measures. A regulation of 1795 modified the rules as to the
actions of zamindars in collecting rents from their tenants and ryots. But as a result of this
measure, their powers of coercion were increased. As a result of Shore's second measure,
civil courts were established, and additional powers were granted to the Indians who were
made responsible for deciding minor causes. Despite these measures, the delays in the
settlement of suits continued, and so did the sales and the dismemberment of estates. The
latter were due the numerous claims of exemption from the control of zamindars on the
ground of taluqdari rights. Lord Wellesley in 1799 and Minto in 1807 made unsuccessful
attempt to remove this defect. But by Lord Minto’s time the difficulties were beginning to
grow less but this was due to more to the greater goodwill of the zamindars than to the
revised regulations. So long as the system was regarded with suspicion, the difficulties
continued.
Cornwallis had advocated the cause of Permanent Settlement with the hope that the
Company’s servants would be freed from their absorption in the revenue work. But as a
consequence of the working of the system, collector's task became more difficult.
Moreover, the mass of revenue suits filled the Zilla courts beyond measure. It had now
become imperative to solve this problem. Various measures to remove this evil were
adopted during the years 1795-1802. Shore reimposed a fee on the registration of a suit.
He also increased the number of courts and of the Indians qualified to settle the minor
suits.
Under Wellesly the regulations as to the appeals were stiffened, and assistant judges were
appointed to remove the pressure on Sadar Court. Wellesley thought it undesirable that
the Governor-General and Council should continue to act as its judges. A reorganization
therefore took place in 1805, three judges took over the responsibilities of the court. The
reforms of Wellesley failed to stop the evil of delay. Further attempts at remedying the
evil were made by Lord Minto. In 1807, the number of judges in the civil courts was
increased to four, in 1811, it was enacted that the number of district judges should be
increased as necessity occurred. Another step for remedying the congestion of business
was the reorganization of the system of circuit. In 1793 the provincial court of appeal was
closed. The judges now went on circuit in their capacity of circuit judges. A regulation of
1794 provided for the unbroken session of the court. A further change was made in 1797
when the trial of appeal cases during the absence of the judges on circuit was made
possible. Similar congestion in the trial of criminal cases was met by the increase in the
power of magistrates in petty cases, and by conferring on them the right of delegating
power to their assistants. In 1807 were enacted special rules for the punishment of
dacoits. These changes however, proved as mere palliatives.
In 1808 ended the unhesitating acquiescence in the Cornwallis system and the work of
reform started a few years later. The Charter Act of 1813 made important changes in the
position of the Company. It was the result of the careful examination of several years. In

100
1808 a Select Committee was appointed in England to enquire into the affairs of the
Company. The Committee issued five reports and the fifth contained the detailed analysis
of the Bengal system.
This period also saw the beginning of an enquiry in Bengal. It was started in 1809 by
Lord Minto and it was continued by his successor Marquess of Hastings. One aspect of
the reform movement embodied in the Charter Act of 1813 will be discussed a little later.
The Court of Directors’ Despatch of November 1814 emphasized the other aspect of the
reform movement.
The Despatch of 1814 proposed a radical change. As there was pressure on the civil
courts, a resumption by the collector of his power in civil justice had become absolutely
necessary. Similarly, the difficulties experienced in the administering of criminal justice
and in the regulation of the police demanded that the collectors should once more have
magisterial powers and be responsible for the superintendence of the police. In order to
improve the administration of justice, additional powers were given to the Indian agents.
The pressure on the higher courts was to be relieved by increasing the criminal
jurisdiction of the Zilla judges. It was hoped that the judicial interference of the Collector
would ensure greater protection for the ryots.
The acceptance of the recommendations of this dispatch would have meant a denial of the
principles enunciated by Cornwallis. Such revolutionary changes were not acceptable to
the Government of India which was still dominated by a Conservative spirit.
Even then much had been done to modify the existing system. During Lord Hastings'
tenure of office, some measures were adopted which were a clear departure from the
system established by Cornwallis.
Steps were taken to mitigate the evil of overburdening of the civil courts. The powers of
Indian munsiffs and Sadar Amins in civil justice were defined in 1814 and extended in
1821. The Indian officers were, however, not vested with final powers and other
measures were needed to remedy the position. The procedure in appeal was laid down by
a Regulation of 1814. Steps were also taken to relieve the pressure in the higher courts. A
separate court was established for the Western Provinces so as to diminish the burden of
the Calcutta appeal court, but the most important steps were the appointment of a fifth
judge and the systematic division of labour between the judges. Special commissions
were established to administer justice in the new parts of the province. This was done to
meet the difficulties of the lesser courts. But the more effective measures for relief were
the increase in the number of the Zilla judges, and the transfer of certain judicial
functions to the revenue authorities. The collectors were enjoying considerable judicial
powers in unsettled districts whereas in Bengal they were having slight powers. Even in
Bengal, however, the collectors had some judicial business in connection with land
revenue. In 1819 the collectors were authorized to deal with cases relating to claims to
exemption from assessment, and in 1822 to rectify errors committed at the time of sales.

101
Least attention was paid to the Directors' instructions regarding the administration of
criminal justice. Principles of Cornwallis still lingered on. That is why the separation of
criminal justice from the work of revenue officers was maintained. The system
established by Cornwallis had been in force for a long time. The Collectors of 1820 were
practically all without experience in judicial affairs. Hence they could not be expected to
administer criminal justice efficiently. Moreover, the collectors in the districts were
assisted by the Indian tahsildars. Entrusting them with magisterial power would have
amounted to violation of Cornwallis' principle of not vesting real powers in Indian hands.
Only tentative steps could therefore be taken in this direction. In criminal justice, as in
civil, more Zilla judges were appointed and a fifth member added in the appeal court.
This was meant to face the challenge posed by the pressure of cases. But not much was
done to meet the instructions to combine justice and revenue. In 1818, the first in this
direction was taken when three collectors were specially empowered to act as
magistrates. In 1821 was passed a permissive Regulation. By this Regulation such power
might be granted to any collector at the direction of the Supreme Government. In the
following years a few more collectors and sub-collectors were granted power under the
Regulation.
Thus, when Lord Hastings left India, considerable changes had been effected. But "a
good system of Law" which was the chief need, was not yet established. A vast body of
new regulations had followed and the courts had piled up judicial precedents. No
comprehensive code had been issued. Many improvements, however, had been made in
criminal and civil justice. The position of collector had once more been changed. The
collector was "climbing back to his position at the state's man of all work; and was well
on his way to reach it in time to be the chief instrument of the next reform movement”.
The arrival of Lord William Bentinck marked the beginning of a new era. The
administrative system established by Cornwallis had been hastily adapted to the new
conquered territories. Bentinck consolidated and reorganized this system. The provincial
Courts of Appeal were showing signs of deterioration. Courts had become, in William
Bentinck's own words, "resting places for those members of the service who were
deemed unfit for high responsibilities". These courts were now abolished and their
criminal jurisdiction transferred to the Commissioners of Revenue. This experiment,
however, proved a failure. The sessions were then allotted to the civil judges who were
“instructed to hold a monthly goal delivery and became the forerunners of the present
District Judges". Their magisterial powers had of course to be transferred, and were given
to the district collectors. The main feature of district administration was thus established.
Power was concentrated in the hands of the European District Magistrate. He was now
also the collector of revenue and head of the police. He was the Sessions Judge with
criminal and civil jurisdiction.

102
The main weakness of Cornwallis Regulations was the exclusion of Indians from high
judicial posts. It is true that the jurisdiction of the Indian officers had been slightly
increased from time to time. But, the first important step was taken in 1827 when more
subordinate judges were appointed. Sadar Amins were empowered to try suits involving
double the former amount. In 1831, Lord William Bentinck established a superior type of
Indian eivil judges authorized to try cases involving property to any amount, and with
salaries rising to £720 a year: The next ten years saw the appointment of Indian Deputy
Collectors in 1837 and Deputy Magistrates in 1843. As deputy collectors they were able
to pass sentence of imprisonment up to three years. In this way some real recognisation
was given to the principle contained in the charter Act of 1833. "Be it enacted that no
native of the said territories. ...shall by reason only of his religion, place of birth, descent,
colour or, any of them, be disabled from holding any place, office or employment in the
said country.' Upto the time of the revolt of 1857, “the employment of Indians was being
extended at a moderate scale”. Nearly every civil case was by this time being tried
originally before an Indian judge.
Land Revenue Administration
As inevitable result of the foundation of the British administration was the dissolution of
existing land system. There was a period of innovations between the process of
destruction and reconstruction. It was Lord Cornwallis who gave the Permanent
Settlement to Bengal which has already been discussed elaborately. With its advantages
and disadvantages, the Permanent Settlement continued to exist where it was introduced.
The extension of the British Empire, however, necessitated a new type of administrative
organisation based on different systems of land revenue settlement. The wars in the south
brought an accession of territories where the Zamindari tenure was not in general use. It
was confined to isolated tracts and to local chiefs. Under these circumstances, the
advisability of settling the lands on the model of Bengal was seriously questioned. A
similar problem arose when after the defeat of the Marathas, the British became masters
of the Deccan.
Moreover, the shortcomings of the Zamindari settlement of Bengal, i.e., Permanent
settlement were becoming more and more apparent. The expectations from the system
had not been justified. The landlords, as was hoped, did not prove to be warm and zealous
supporters of the government. Immediately after the Permanent Settlement, both in
Bengal and the Northern Sarkars, “a struggle commenced between the local government
and the zamindars. Instead of co-operating in the matters of administration, the latter
embarrassed the government in all possible ways. The zamindari areas were infested with
robbers and decoits and the Zamindars promoted bribery and corruption and connived at
crime.” As a result of the working of the system, there was loosening of the bond between
the government and the people. So long as the rents were paid regularly by the Zamindar,
the Government left him free to do what he liked and the collector remained in the

103
background. There was lack of knowledge of the interior and of real contact with the
masses this adversely affected government's capacity to control the country and its
authority was weakened. Another disadvantage of the system was that it deprived the
state of a share in the increase of rent which was the result of the improvement of the
economic conditions. The entire unearned increment was handed over to the Zamindar
and the settlement while it "favoured a handful of landholders, completely ignored the
interest of vast mass of landholders, whose resentment and dissatisfaction seemed to
evoke no sympathy."
Munro exposed the weakness of the Permanent Settlement. The home authorities were
gradually convinced of the unwisdom of extending it to other parts of India. The Select
Committee appointed to review the affairs of the East India Company, preceding the
renewal of Charter of 1813, favoured the introduction of the ryotwari system.
The Ryotwari System
The ryotwari system was mainly effected in the territories of Madras, Bombay and Sind.
Munro introduced this system in all the unsettled areas of Madras in 1820. Under this
system, "there was no middle-men like the landlord, the lamberdar or the taluqudar who
mediated between the ryot of cultivator and the Government. This system was a direct
one. A thorough survey of each village was made and a descriptive register was prepared
with an account of every ryot's holding. The holdings were all numbered and given an
identity. The owner's name was entered and his rights of occupancy acknowledged. his
right to transfer his land and the right of inheritance for his progency were maintained."
The lands were classified by the Government according to the fertility and nature of the
soil and the crops produced. The average production for a number of years formed the
basis for the ascertainment of the grain-value of the land. That, in its turn was converted
into money-value. Deducting the average annual cultivation cost from the said value, a
net income from the land was ascertained. Approximately one-half of the said value was
fixed as the maximum revenue for the land.
The ryotwari system established the closest relation between the people and the
government, for the system required the realization of rents by the officials directly from
each holding. It was necessary that each field should be measured and surveyed and its
boundaries determined and boundary marks set up. It involved the preparation of field
maps and the taluq maps and a whole department of the Surveyor General to carry out
these duties.
The government had originally intended to make the assessment of revenue as permanent
as under the Permanent Settlement. The idea was later on given up. It was felt desirable to
make periodical settlements. But this gave sense of insecurity to the ryots. They were
apprehensive of higher assessment and distrusted new settlements. There was yet another
defect in the system. The ryot remained the master of his land so long as he paid the

104
revenue. But when he failed to pay, the government could take over his land in its direct
possession. The assessments were sometimes at a high rate. The government tax
collectors often practised oppression on the individual ryots: Thus, "the direct relation
between the state and the tiller was not always an unmixed blessing".
The ryotwari system was supposed to be a close approximation to the old Indian system
prevalent in these regions. But actually, 'it created private property in land, destroyed the
unity and cohesion of village life, and exposed the cultivator to the ruthless oppression of
the revenue authorities who demanded and enforced payment of the land revenue even in
years of drought."
The Mirasdari System
Lionel Place, Collector of the Jagir in South India, found the villages owned in
inheritable shares by mirasdars who exercised the right of disposing of their shares by
mortgage, gift or sale. The principal Mirasdars had been accustomed to act together on
behalf of the village, and “It was found convenient and profitable to abandon the old
practice of renting out the jagirs in parcels to speculators, and to settle instead with the
mirasdars of each village for a lamp sum calculated to be equivalent to the state's share of
the crop.” The system worked smoothly enough and gave an increasing revenue during
the administration of Place as he made sincere efforts to restore the efficiency of the
village accountants. He acquired close knowledge of the affairs of villages under his
control. A similar system was successfully tried in the government village in the Northern
Sarkars."12
The Mahalwari System or Village Settlement
Lord Hastings’ victories in the last Maratha War brought the Gangetic valley under the
British rule, and subsequently the annexation of the Punjab, Avadh and Nagpur
completed the British dominions in India.
The settlement of these regions naturally followed. Here a new system was tried which
borrowed some features from the Zamindari system of Bengal and some of the ryotwari
system of the Deccan but also embodied some original elements of its own. This system
is known as Mahalwari or Village Settlement.
Under the Mahalwari system, the state fixed revenue not forever, but for a limited period
of thirty years at some places and twenty years at other places. The settlement was not
made with the individual landlords as under the Permanent Settlement, but with the
village as such. The villagers as a whole became responsible for the payment of revenue
for the whole village. An arrangement on behalf of the entire village to pay the stipulated
amount of revenue was signed by the village headman known as lambardar. Whatever
amount of revenue the whole village was required to pay was paid by the individual

12
Cambridge History of India, Vol. V. pp.468

105
villagers according to their respective holdings. Thus “the villager himself was the owner
of the land as long as he paid his revenue for the land”.
The government settlement officers were made responsible for the assessment of land
revenue. They, in consultation with lambardar and the village bodies, fixed the revenue.
The tenants had with them their records of right and the village was in possession of land
charts, maps and settlement of individual holdings. Since the Settlement rested on the
periodical assessments, the government had the advantage of ascertaining the
productivity of catagories of land from time to time." While fixing the land revenue, the
yielding capacity of the soil, the nature of the crop it produced and the prices of such
crops were taken into account. The assessment once made was continued for the full term
of the settlement.
The Mahalwari system, however, had a great drawback. The lambardar and the other
village headman enjoyed the privilege which they misused at times for their self-interest.
They were directly in touch with the government since they had entered into an
agreement with it. The lambardar and some headmen therefore acted as intermediaries
between the government and the villagers. The small tenants thus reduced to an inferior
position were often oppressed by the powerful headman. They were used as cultivators by
the big possessors of village lands. These subordinate cultivators actually got just a
subsistence remuneration and the rest of the produce went into the hands of the big
owners.”
The introduction of the Mahalwari system, however, did not disrupt the community's
organisation as the settlement was made with the village and not with the individual.
Taluqdari System
The Mahalwari system did not cover the whole of the Uttar Pradesh. In the district of
Oudh, there existed another system known as Taluqdari System. Under it a number of
villages were put under the taluqdari system. The government entered into an agreement
with the taluqdar for a period of 30 years. The taluqdar collected the stipulated revenues
from different villages put under his charge and deposited them with the government,
after deducting the cost of collection of the revenues and his own remuneration for the
arduous work. Unlike the Bengal Zamindars the Oudh taluqdars had no real rights over
the lands under their charge. Moreover, they worked as revenue collectors for the fixed
period of the settlement, and not in perpetuity.
The various land systems introduced by the British brought for the cultivators
considerable hardship. The decline of small scale industries in the country created
excessive pressure on land, and the growth of population increased that pressure
considerably.” The government adopted a passive attitude towards the condition of the
peasantry which kept the latter in a state of helplessness and despair. Finally, there being
no improvement or development in the manner of the agriculture, the same outmoded

106
methods of cultivation continued and degenerated further and further. The main difficulty
arising out of the various land systems was a sense of insecurity on the part of the
peasant'13.
Other Trends of Administrative Reorganisation
The successor's of Lords Cornwallis were more concerned with the preservation of order
that with the adjudication of right. The general trend was in the favour of exercising
personal discretion, and a change from civilian to military rule. The result was "a
concentration of authority which bordered on military discipline".
Under the Cornwallis system, the magisterial and police control of a district was vested in
the district magistrate, and the collection of revenue in the collector, under the
supervision of the Board of Revenue at Calcutta. The first breach in the system was made
in 1829 when the post of commissioner was created and wide powers were entrusted to
him. Each commissioner was placed in charge of a division. The work of the collectors in
the division was supervised by him. He was also to superintend the administration of
judges. He became a judicial officer too, for the duties of the session judge and the
Provincial Courts of Appeal were transferred to him.
Later on, finding the charge of a Commissioner too heavy, the Commissioner’s criminal
jurisdiction was transferred to the district judge, and the magisterial duties of the judge
were handed over to the collector. Thus, the collector came to combine in himself the
function of magistracy, police and judiciary in rent and revenue cases. An hierarchy of
subordinate staff was established to assist the collector.
The paternalistic principles of union of powers and of individual and personal
responsibility replaced the ideas of the separation of powers and collective responsibility.
There were some changes in the police organization. The village chowkidars were
responsible to Daroghas of the thanas for their duties. They being dependent upon the
Zamindars for their maintenance did not prove equal to the task. They failed to suppress
crime and the countryside continued to be infested with gang robbery. The Zamindars had
been deprived of their authority and were unwilling to again shoulder the responsibility of
maintaining law and order. The office of the Provincial Superintendent of Police was
created in 1803 but terminated in 1829. The work was next entrusted to the
commissioners. Later on, the collector-magistrates were made responsible for the
supervision of police arrangements. The actual duties of crime-pervention, however,
remained in the charge of the district superintendents of police who were: assisted by the
Darogahs.

13
A Social, Cultural and Economic History of India : P.N.Chopra, B.N. and M.N.Das, Vol. III. p. 182

107
Daroghas, Modernising Trends under Dalhousie
It now remains to discuss, some of the steps by which Lord Dalhousie “converted the
stationary India of Lord Wellesely into the progressive India of our days.”14
Dalhousie came to India as a convinced Westernizer. His measures would be western
measures carried out by western agency. For him the promotion of civilization and the
promotion of western reform were the one and the same thing. He believed that the
western administration and western institutions were superior to the Indian. "The
consciousness of conquest competed with the sense of moral mission and increasingly
combined with the latter to produce a sense of ingrained superiority.” Dalhousie not only
conquered provinces and annexed large tracts, he also engaged in “incessant reforming
and constructive activity. He has been called the founder of modern India,” for he was the
first to envisage a modernized and westernized India as a practical proposition rather than
a far off dream."15
The expansion of British demonions under Dalhousie created new problems: territorial,
racial and political. The inclusion of the Panjab, Oudh and Nagpur in the empire changed
the strategic basis of British power. The problem was how to consolidate the dominions
situated at unprecedented distances from the British military base on the sea-board. The
racial problem was how to adapt the system of government to warlike tribes and nations.
There was also a political problem. The British dominions now included the distant
territories of the Panjab, Burma and Berar. The supervision of the Governor General was
hitherto confined to Bengal only. Now the problem was how to extend this supervision to
the distant territories just mentioned—so as to enable him to maintain watch and ward
over them. The Governor-General of India was also the governor of Bengal. As such he
was the head of the local government of Bengal. The problem was solved by the Act of
Parliament of 1853. The Governor General was relieved of the functions as the Governor
of Bengal. A lieutenant-governor was appointed for the administration of the lower
Provinces.
Under then system theorevailing, the great bodies of troops had been massed round
Calcutta and the headquarters of the Bengal artillery were located at Dumdum about 7
miles away from Calcutta. The conquest of the Punjab transferred the main military
interests to the distant north. Dalhousie, therefore, removed the headquarters of the
Bengal army to Meerut about a thousand miles inland. With the alteration in the political
and military centre of gravity, there was a general movement of troops towards the
Punjab. Gradually, Simla in the Punjab grew into the seat of government for most part of
the year. From here Dalhousie began to watch the newly annexed territories. In 1865, the
permanent headquarters of the army were transferred to Simla.

14
Marqis of Dalhousie : William Hunter, p. 124
15
The Oxford History of Modern India by Percival Spear, p.216

108
While organising the administration of the four great new provinces (the Punjab, Burma,
the Nagpur territories and Oudh) Dalhousie combined civilian and military officers in the
personnel of the local administration. He devised a system of judicial and revenue
administration from two sources. First, local usages and customs, so far as they did not
contravene the fundamental principles of humanity. Second, the simpler class of British
laws, enactments and regulations for the revenue and judicial management of the country
and for its police. These were derived from the system at work in the Presidencies. The
indigenous system formed the groundwork of the whole. The superstructure was shaped
upon the models at work within British India.
The system described above was meant for the NON-REGULATION PROVINCES. The
system was not entirely new. Examples were there, (although on a small scale), before
Dahousie. The system was fully developed after Dalhousie's time. Non-Regulation
system "was the child of Dalhousie, devised by his swift and comprehensive mind for his
conquests and annexations."16 Under this system a man hardly experienced any change in
his daily life except when he had to deal with the Company's revenue officials or went to
their courts.
The essential feature of Dalhousie's system was the concentration of all powers-judicial,
executive, revenue and police in the hands of the district officer—the Deputy
Commissioner, as the head of the district, aided by assistants. At a later stage, some
changes had to be introduced in the Non Regulation system. As the country settled down,
the need of a more detailed administration was keenly felt. The Chief Commissioner
developed into a Lieutenant Governor. Thus local governments with large powers of
independence were created for the Punjab and Oudh. With the growth of trade and
industry and the consequent prosperity of the people, there started the process of gradual
separation between the judicial and executive functions of the Deputy Commissioner in
Dalhousie's Non-Regulation provinces. This separation of powers would have weakened
the hands of executive had it been carried out in the provinces shortly after their
annexation.
Lord Dalhousie’s work in India was not merely a work of conquest; it was also a work of
consolidation. He created a new mechanism for amalgamating the augmented British
dominions and literally bound together the old and the new territories by bonds of iron.
He was the father alike of the railway and telegraph in India.
Dalhousie wrote his famous railway minute in 1853. The scheme "one of the most
comprehensive and far-seeing which ever issued from a human brain", remained the basis
of the whole railway system of India for a long time to come. It convinced the home
authorities of the need and feasibility of railways and laid down the main lines of their
development. He envisaged a network connecting the main internal centres with the ports

16
The Manquies of Dalhousie : Sir William Hunter, p. 129

109
and providing both of strategical needs and commercial developments. Before he left
India, 200 miles were in operation and had proved a success.
The introduction of railways provided Dalhousie with an opportunity “to throw the
country open to private enterprise and to English capital, in a degree before unknown.”
This inagurated a new industrial era in India. The railways were not allowed to be made a
purely government undertaking. He offered them to public companies under a system of
state guarantee.
This was Lord Dalhousie's masterly idea. He would consolidate the newly annexed
territories of India by this railways and “immensely increase the striking power of his
military force at every point of the Empire.” as well as “he would use the railway
construction as a bait to bring British capital and private enterprise to India...”
Dalhousie, from the beginning, was very particular about the mercantile aspect of his
railway routes. He believed that immense commercial and social advantages would
follow the introduction of railways. There were areas teeming with surplus produce. This
produce could be conveyed to places where it was needed most. India could supply cotton
to the British textile industries. Given fitting means of conveyance it could be transported
from distant plains to the ports adapted for its shipment.
Dalhousie's commercial reforms were no less important. He threw the coast of India open
to the world and also facilitated the approach to them by light houses, marine surveys and
improved harbour accommodation. Merchant Service Acts were passed to improve and
regulate the condition of sailors. Some steps were taken to check adulteration practised in
the cotton trade. Lord Dalhousie's measures gave unprecedented impetus to the Indian
trade. During his tenure of office, the export of gains multiplied by more than threefold
and the “new articles of the commerce poured into the markets, under the influence of
improved internal communication and open ports.”
As a result of the vast increase of productive industry, the Indians were enabled to
purchase the manufactures of England on an unprecedented scale. The impart of cotton
goods into India rose from 3 million sterling in 1848 to 6-1/3 millions in 1856. The total
imports of merchandise and treasure increased during the eight years from 10½ to 25¼
millions.
Dalhousie, however, was not content to bind together the empire of India by the iron
chains, two other powerful instruments of consolidation introduced into India were the
telegraph and a half- anna post. The railways and the telegraph proved immensely helpful
to the British during the Revolt of 1857. The telegraph “flashed back the details of the
day’s battle or assault to the Governor-General in Calcutta before he set down to dinner.”
The electric telegraph was not to remain merely the basis of British military policy in
India; it soon became the basis of the modern mercantile system of India; it has facilitated
the modern commercial activity. Calcutta and Bombay, situated on the opposite coasts of

110
India and separated by a great distance “are within a few minutes speaking distance by
wire, and discuss their hourly transactions with each other throughout the day.”17
Another major change effected by Lord Dalhousie was the abolition of old incompetent
Military Board and the creation of a great Department of Public Works. The Public works
expenditure was increased to 2½ millions sterling in 1856. He not only gave "roads,
canals, court-houses, jails, treasuries and the whole fabric of civilised administration to
the Punjab; no other province escaped his attention, and the routes throughout all India,
with their strongly constructed bridges and permanent metalled ways, date their
improvement from him. "His public works comprised the extension of irrigation projects,
such as the Ganga Canal, which had already been begun. He had a great road programme
to his credit; of which the most striking monument was the Grand Trunk Road from
Calcutta to Peshawar.
Lord Dalhousie was also the father of cheap and civilized postage. In 1853-54, “he swept
away the whole antiquated fabric of obstruction and replaced it by the modern postal
system of India.” He levied a uniform system of half-anna for all letters not exceeding
half a tola in weight and for all India. Instead of Indian letters being charged at different
rates according to distance, they were now carried throughout India, at a uniform rate of
half an anna, for half the tola. The system made the Post office self-supporting and
instead of “being a chronic drain on the sinances, Dalhousie's reform made itself
supporting, and has of late years converted it into a source of actual revenue, so far as its
operations in British India are concerned.” The social results of the new system were
however more important. It has done perhaps more than the railways or telegraphs “in
revolutionizing the old stagnant and self-isolated life of India." In fact, it created the habit
of letter writing on a great scale among the people of India.
The India of railways, the telegraph and the state-inspected schools, “that is to say, the
India created by Lord Dalhousie, is the India of today.”
Besides his great measures aimed at conquest and consolidation, Lord Dalhousie “kept a
firm although liberal hand upon the public expenditure of India. From 1842 to 1862, these
were seventeen years of deficit, and only four years of surplus, in the Indian exchequer.
These four years (1850-53) were the central years of Lord Dalhousie's rule. Yet he spent
liberally upon the Public Works. He did not shrink from an increase of expenditure when
the increase as absolutely required. There was an increased expenditure on army and civil
administration. This increase of expenditure was more than met by the increase in
revenue.
During the period 1848-1856 the total revenue of India rose from 24½ millions to over
30¼. Lord Dalhousie “swept away the cumbrous lumber of the antiquated Boards, alike
in the commissariat and Public Works, and replaced them by vigilant departments under
individually responsible Heads.”

17
Ibid p. 139.

111
A review of Dalhousie’s administration as a whole betrays the impress of a “masterly as
well as a masterful mind.” Percival Spear admirably sums up Dalhousie and his role as a
moderniser of modern India, “he lacked imaginative sympathy with tradition and the
Indian point of view. But for all that he was filled with a vision of the modern India that
was to be; he exhausted his strength in the service of that India and did more, perhaps,
than any single man to bring it about. Wellesley had acquired much territory and
displayed singular drive and purpose but Dalhousie spent more energy in organising than
in acquiring. Bentinck had the vision of a westernized India, but while he could do little
more than put up a few sign-posts, Dalhousie laid down the roads of progress. Curzon
was a great systematiser but Dalhousie created what Curzon sought to perfect...... His
weakness was that of going too fast. He was a sick man in hurry. He was the apostle of a
westernized India with an apostle’s zeal and faith. He lacked the sympathetic
understanding, the intuitive, knowledge of how his measures would appear to those they
affected. For this he paid the penalty of the Mutiny disaster...”18
Select Readings
1. R.C. Majumdar, H.C.Ray Choudhri : An Advanced History of India, Part III,
Chapter VIII,
and K.K. Dutta pp. 799-804.
The Oxford History of Modern India (1740-
1947). Books II Chapter 8, pp. 210-8

2. The Cambridge History of India, : Chapter XXVI. pp. 456-461.

Vol. V.Ed. by H.H. Dodwell Chapter XXVII pp.467-482.
Further Readings
1. P.N. Chopra
B.N. Puri : A Social, Cultural, and Economic History of
India
M.N. Dass vol. III Chapter 1. pp. 27-29
Chapter III pp. 172-181

2. Sir William Wilson Hunter : The Marquess of Dalhousie Chapter IX, X

and XI

18
The Oxford History of Modern India by percival Spear, pp. 217-218

112
 De-Industrialisation

During the first half of the nineteenth century and leading up to 1880s India’s economy
witnessed a strange phenomenon. While the western countries were experiencing
industrialisation, India suffered industrial decline. This process has been described as de-
industrialisation. This was occasioned by British impact on Indian economy during the
colonial period. India’s traditional handicraft industry decayed beyond recovery. The
period of decline of Indian handicrafts coincided with the Industrial Revolution in Britain
and Britain’s firm grip over the Indian economy. De-industrialisation became one of the
major planks of the nationalist critique of colonial rule while the imperialist scholars
negated any such charge stressing rather the benevolent aspect of colonial rule.
The primary reasons for this controversy are the lack of statistical data and the
difference in approach of various scholars. In recent years, however, there has been a
shift from abstract generalisations and statistical computations geared to arrive at a
desired conclusion to specific micro regional studies to examine the process of de-
industrialisation.
The nineteenth century was on the whole a period dominated by industrial capital
when Britain’s industrialists and trading interests expanded their operations on the
doctrine of free trade. Their persistent propaganda and lobbying resulted in the Charter
Act of 1813 which abolished Company’s monopoly over India trade. India which so far
had chiefly been an exporting country now started importing the goods. British textiles
flooded Indian markets spelling a doom for the weaving industry. It was noted in 1834,’’
The misery hardly finds a parallel in the history of commerce. The bones of cotton
weavers are bleaching the plains of India.’’ Karl Marx, an astute contemporary observer
noted,’’ It was the British intruder who broke up the Indian handloom and destroyed the
spinning wheels. England began with depriving the Indian cotton from the European
markets; it then introduced twist into Hindustan and in the end inundated the very mother
country of cotton with cottons’’.
Dr. D.R. Gadgil has mentioned three principal causes which operated in the first half
of the nineteenth century to bring about a rapid decline in the artistic excellence and
economic importance of Indian handicrafts. The first was the disappearance native Indian
princely establishments that patronised fancy arts and handicrafts and often employed the
best craftsmen on a regular salary. Secondly, the establishment of foreign rule brought a
new professional elite with distinct European tastes and Indian elites too trying to ape
their masters. Both treated Indian products with disdain. The third reason cited by Gadgil
is the stiff opposition posed to Indian handicrafts by highly developed machine industry.

113
 Another scholar B.D. Basu puts more emphasis on the use of political power by
Britain to strangle Indian handicrafts. Among the processes and methods used by the
British he mentions the free trade doctrine, the export of raw materials from India, the
transit and customs duties, the granting of special privileges to the British manufactures
in India. All this resulted in the process of de-industrialisation.
There is a general agreement among the scholars that the decline of handicrafts was
neither universal nor simultaneous. It varied in time and space. Since Rajasthan was
opened up by the railways after 1911 the decline there was subsequent to it. Despite
extremely adverse circumstances Indian handicrafts could not be completely wiped out.
The rural population steeped in poverty continued to purchase cheaper khadi cloth and
village made iron and wooden agricultural implements. The Swadeshi movement in the
beginning of the twentieth century popularised indigenous products on patriotic grounds
and this created some market for khadi in urban areas. In the Gandhian era village
industries received encouragement and this kept the Indian industries alive.
Even after the rise of modern industry in India after the First World War the process
of de-industrialisation continued. There was a decline in the proportion of industrial
worker as compared to the agricultural labour. Between 1851 and 1911 the proportion of
work force in manufacturing, mining and construction fell from 35% to 17%.
The Nationalist School held that the British rule resulted in a progressive decline and
destruction of urban Indian handicrafts and village artisan handicrafts. Millions forced out
of their traditional occupation fell back upon agriculture and consequently it resulted in
the ruralisation of the country. They maintained that India possessed a substantial
manufacturing set up since time immemorial which was sufficient both in quantity and
quality to cater to domestic and foreign needs. M J Thomas has estimated that in 1790 the
export of cloth amounted to around 50 million yards valued at a million pound sterling.
But by 1850s the imports amounted to over 500 million yards while the export was only
30 million yards.
However the Nationalist critique was rather naive and romantic in essence. They
relied heavily on the statistics of external trade which indicated a collapse of traditional
Indian textile exports and a rapid increase in Lancashire imports. This by itself is no
definite proof of a decline in domestic productivity. The decline of handicrafts was not a
uniform and cataclysmic process as is assumed by the Nationalists. It was only Gadgil
who presented a critique of British economic policies and delineated the stages and nature
of decline of the handicrafts in different regions.
The current de-industrialisation debate was initiated by Daniel and Alice Thorner
who argued that it was a worldwide phenomenon under the impact of the Industrial
Revolution. If de-industrialisation happened as described by the Nationalists this should
have been reflected in the census figures showing a decline in the industrial work force
and a jump in agricultural labour. But in reality the aggregate general labour and

114
agricultural labour rose from 60 million in 1881 to 75 million in 1911. The proportion of
male labour in agriculture was 75% in 1911 and 76% in 1931 registering only a slight
increase.
Thorner’s conclusion of a slight decline in the share of manufacturing and trade from
18% to 15% is also substantiated by J. Krishnamurti who suggests that a fall in
employment need not imply a corresponding fall in output provided there was an
application of improved technology in some handicrafts. Thorner therefore concludes that
if there indeed was a major shift from industries to agriculture it was before 1880. It also
led them to believe that there was not much decline in the manufacturing sector between
1881 and 1931. Marginal decline in the traditional sector was actually offset by the
employment generation with the growth of modern industries. If there indeed was any de-
industrialisation it must have been before 1880.
Another scholar who firmly rejects the possibility of de-industrialisation is Morris
David Morris. He disapproves of the importance given to the textile industry but uses it as
an example to further his argument. He challenged the imperialist exploitation thesis put
forward by Indian Nationalist writers and publicists and instead argued that colonial rule
“probably stimulated economic activity in India in a way which had never been possible
before” and that “the handloom weavers were at least no fewer in number and no worse
off economically at the end of the period than at the beginning” and also that there might
have been some growth in absolute terms. Indigenous textile production, Morris argues,
might have remained constant or might even have increased in spite of the big rise in
imports from Lancashire because of a massive upswing in the Indian to cover both.
However, he gives no data to bear out this upswing.
Morris’ reinterpretation largely follows the traditional imperialist argument which
pointed out that India was growing more prosperous under colonial rule. Morris’
arguments to refute the whole theory of de-industrialisation are in fact more conjectural
and dubious than the much abused Nationalists. He has been severely criticised by
scholars like Prof. Bipan Chandra, Toru Matsui and Tapan Roy Choudhury. Toru Matsui
contends that even if a sharp fall in the prices of yarn benefitted the handicrafts industry it
must have struck a severe blow to the spinning industry.
The argument that the indigenous weavers benefitted from lower prices of imported
yarns ignores both the ruin of Indian spinners as well as the problem faced by the fall in
the prices of woven textiles because of the reduction in manufacturing costs occasioned
by the technological improvements not in India but in Britain. Lancashire manufacturers
benefitted from reduction in cost both in spinning and weaving. Indian weavers, on the
other hand, gained from low price imported yarns but since the weaving costs remained
high they could not compete with the cheap imported cloth. Toru Matsui, therefore, in his
rejoinder to Morris, explains that Indian weavers’ condition could hardly have improved
(Indian Economic and Social History Review, 1968).

115
 While there is ample evidence of a decline in the textile centres one has no proof of
any new centre growing or of an increase in the number of the artisanal class in towns or
in the countryside. This makes Morris’ contention of no decline in the artisanal class
questionable. Tapan Roy Chaudhury adds to the criticism by saying that even the
surviving traditional sector was marked by stagnation. Irfan Habib too throws the weight
of his argument against M D Morris through his criticism of Cambridge Economic
Histoty of India, Vol-II, published in Modern Asian Studies, 1985, where he refers to the
work by Amalendu Guha who has given an estimate of handloom production. According
to him the availability of cotton yarn to the handloom industry declined from 419 million
pounds in 1850-60 to 221 million pounds in 1900.
Amiya Bagchi recently attempted a close statistical comparison of Buchanan
Hamilton’s survey of early nineteenth century Bihar districts with the data given in 1901
Census. The data corroborate a decline in the number of people living on artisanal
production from 18% to8% and a substantial decline of cotton weavers and spinners. The
sufferings caused by de-industrialisation caused severe unrest among the people giving
rise to several rural and urban movements and sparked patriotic sentiments among the
Moderates, the Extremists and also during the Gandhian era.
The survival of the handloom industry can be explained in terms of preference of
poor masses for coarse cloth and of many labourers taking to weaving as a part time job.
By one estimate the process of de-industrialisation continued in Bengal for a period of
fifty years at the least.
In sum it can be safely concluded on the basis of several studies and the data at hand that
that de-industrialisation was a reality that India faced under colonial rule. The degree of
its impact varied with region and from industry to industry. While arms and iron smelting
was wiped out the handloom industry showed a remarkable capacity to survive. The
process of de-industrialisation on the whole, however, brought untold misery and
suffering to the artisan class who were thrown out of their traditional means of livelihood.

116
 Unit-IV
The Great Rebellion: Its Causes and Nature

Introduction
In this lesson we shall discuss and the nature of the mighty upsurge of 1857 which swept
over many parts of Northern and Central India like an avalanche. Even when so much has
been written on the subject since that time, the latest barring the two exhaustive studies
by two distinguished and outstanding Indian historians, one by Dr. R.C. Majumdar19 and
the other by Dr. S.N. Sen20 it is yet not possible to gave a categorical answer as to the
precise nature and character to this great conflagration. One school of thought still
persists in holding that what happened in 1857 was nothing but the mutinous act of a few
discontented and disgruntled Indian Sepoys who tried to capitalise on the introduction of
the greased cartridges. Those who subscribe to this theory have therefore dismissed this
upheaval as being essentially local in character, sporadic in nature and basically inspired
by a disaffection which afflicted some sections of the sepoys. Some Indian scholars like
Savarkar21 and Ashoka Mehta22 have tried to invest this revolt with the dignity of a war of
national independence. But as succinctly pointed out by the late Maulana Azad, their
works are not history but mere political propaganda’. The recent researches have at last
clearly established one thing, namely, that it was not a planned or well-organised
conspiracy aimed at the overthrow of the British Government. But at the same time it
cannot be denied that even when there were no master minds behind his insurrection,
“what happened was that in the course of a hundred years the Indian people developed a
distaste for the Company’s rule. Since the Company had at first acted in the name of the
nawabs or the Emperor, Indians did not for a long time realise that power had been
captured by a foreign race, and they had been reduced to the position of slaves in their
own country. Once this realization became widespread, the conditions were created for an
outburst. This when it took place was due not to the conspiracy of a few individuals or
groups but to the growing discontent of large numbers of people.”23 (Maulana A.K.
Azad). The very nature and character of the British Government and the western ideas
differed fundamentally from the basic political religious ideas and outlook of the Indians.
Thus if violent clash occurred it was not something unusual or unpredictable. The British
rule had given many rough jolts to the Indians who reacted” sharply and convulsively to
these external impulses.” This violent uprising which was undoubtedly the manifestation
of a “deep-seated disorder” erupted primarily out of the manifold grievancies, political,
economic, social, religious, and military of the Indians against the increasingly hateful

19
R.C. Majumdar—The Sepcy Mutiny and the Revolt of 1857.
20
S.N. Sen—Eighteen Fifty-Seven (The Publication Division, Delhi, 1957).
21
V.D. Savarka—Indian War of Independence.
22
Asoka Mehta—The Great Rebellion.
23
Quoted in S.N. Sen—Eighteen Fifty-Seven, p.x.

117
British domination, more because it was becoming daily more firmly entrenched on the
Indian soil. The introduction of the greased cartridges which undeniably contained the
facts of cow sacred to the Hindus and of pigs forbidden to the Mohammedans, served as a
spark which lighted this faggot of Indian disaffection against the British rule.
The revolt of 1857 was the inevitable consequence of the innumerable grievances of the
Indian people accumulated over the years against the British, Princes, sepoys, zamindars
peasants, artisan and traders—in short, all excepting the few persons who had received
western education or who owed their position due to the favours of the British
Government, had strong reasons to be dissatisfied. They were only waiting for an
opportunity to their pent-up fury against their foreign oppressors. The proclamations
issued by the leaders of the uprising both at Delhi and Lucknow provide us with a good
peep into the grievances of the people. The Lucknow Proclamation, for example, stated,
inter alia, “All Hindus and Mohammedans are aware that for things are dear to all men :
first religion; second honour; third life; fourth property. These four things are safe under a
native government. The English have become enemies of the four things above named.”
After this brief introductory discussions, we shall now deal separately with the various
causes mentioned above.
Causes
The causes of this deep disaffection of our people may be studied under the following
five heads : political, economic, social, religious and military.
(a) Political: Among the political factors the foremost place must necessarily be given
to thedefiniteand unequivocal policy of the British Government to extinguish the
Indian States. This policy took a clear shape under Lord Wellesley when he
perfected the Subsidiary Alliance System. Lord Dalhousie twisted all codes of
morality and conduct to make the political geography of India simpler by absorbing
the Indian States within the bigger and ever-expanding British Empire in India. The
Indian princes were told that they would ever be secure under British protection. But
the system worked to their disadvantage. Protected against all danger, internal as
well as external, the princes were inclined to ignore the well-being of their subjects,
maladministration in the Indian States consequently became the order of the day.
This held out a temptation for the British Government to intervene and to annex
them on one pretext or the other. A definite introduction to this effect was given by
the Directors of the East Company in the year 1841; thereafter, the fate of the Indian
States was almost sealed. Lord Ellenborough (1842-44) annexed Kaithal and Sindh
and made a powerful intervention in the Gwalior. His successor, Lord Hardinge, was
busy fighting with the Sikhs. Lord Dalhousie who took charge of the Government of
India early in 1848 left no stone unturned in implementing the policy of his superiors
with his characteristic thoroughness. A spate of annexations followed. Satara was
annexed in 1848, Punjab, Jaitpur and Sambalpur in 1849, Bhagat in 1850, Lower

118
Burma and Udaipur in 1852, Jhansi in 1853, Nagpur in 1854 and Oudh in 1856. Not
all the annexations were made on the basis of the doctrine of lapse. This principle
was only one of the many convenient tools for the extinction of the Indian States.
The distinction between a dependent and a non-dependent state on which it was
based was so subtle and tenuous that it could be and was construed any way to suit
the fancy of the supreme power. Punjab and Lower Burma were annexed as a result
of aggressive wars. The case of Oudh was unique. It was annexed on the ground of
misgovernment. The titular sovereignties of Carnatic and Tanjore were abolished on
the plea that they were not only useless but their existence was an embarrassment for
the British. Even the Mughal Emperor Bahadur Shah II, escaped indignity with
difficulty. The shabby and callous treatment meted out to him clearly indicated the
direction in which the political wind was blowing. He was told that he would be the
lost holder of the Imperial title. The adopted heir of the ex-Peshwa, Baji Rao II, was
actually disowned by the British government. The inevitable result of all these
measures was the spread of panic among the princes of India. The danger that the
entire princely order was threatened with ruin and extinction was something which
was real and imminent. The annexation of Oudh further shook the princely order of
their placidity. Its annexation was undoubtedly a high-handed act which was morally
unjustifiable. It badly shook the confidence of the people in the British profession
that they had to no ulterior political designs. What bewildered the people was that
the unflinching and determined loyalty of the rulers of Oudh was no protection
against the increasing territorial cupidity of the British. If Oudh could not fend off
the fast moving steam roller of British Imperialism, it could be safely assumed that
the days of other Indian States too were numbered. Thus, Princely India stood on a
dangerously slippery precipice.
The Company’s rule had been marked by repeated provocative acts which at times
assumed an outrageous dimension and was quite often characterised by racial
arrogance. According to Shore, Indians were considered no better than “nasty
heathen wretches” The author of Seir Mutakherin recorded with bitterness that “the
English seldom visit or see any of us”. The English translator of the Seir writes :
“The general tone of the English individuals in India seems to be of thorough
contempt for the Indians (as a national body). It is taken to be no better than a dead
stock, that may be worked upon without much consideration and at pleasure.” Our
countrymen suffered all types of indignities and humiliations at the hands of many of
the British racists. One direct consequences of the presumed British racial superiority
was the exclusion of the people of India all higher appointments which involved trust
and responsibility. This bred feelings of disaffection among the upper classes of the
country, particularly the Muslims. This is corroborated by Sir Sayed Ahmed Khan
who wrote in his famous book, “The Causes of the Indian Revolt” thus “Another
reason for the dissatisfaction of the natives of India, and more especially of the

119
 Mohammedans, was the exclusion of natives from high appointments; a few short
years ago Mohammedans filled the most honourable posts under their own
government and the desire and hope for such is still in them. Under the English
Government they longed for the advancement of their honour in the eyes of the
world but there was no way open to them.” The Muslims who had so long enjoyed
the fruit of their political dominance of this country were sorely bitter at their
systematic exclusion from higher government jobs and positions.
(b) Economic: The East India Company had disrupted the whole economic fabric of
India. They turned the tradition land system topsyturvy by creating the right of
private property in land by impoverishing the cultivator by excessive demands of
revenue and a host of other cases for diverse purposes and by not taking any
effective steps to curb the nefarious frauds of the unscrupulas moneylenders. The
operations of the sale laws and the Imam Commission were carried on in such a
heartless and inhuman manner that a large class of old and loyal-holders was
dispossessed. They naturally became disgruntled and bitterly hostile to the British.
The British economic policy was also detrimental to our traditional rural arts and
handicrafts and disrupted the balance between the two major sectors of the Indian
economy— agriculture and industry. This resulted in an increase in the pressure of
population upon land, which led to the pauperisation of all concerned. Moreover, the
British systematically drained the wealth of our country and thereby destroyed the
very springs of production of our economy. Every class of Indian society, with one
or two exceptions like the money-lenders. Suffered at the hands of their new political
rulers. The impact of the British policy on the economy was sweeping; it interest of
the traders and merchants were sacrificed at the alter of British manufacture; the
artisans and craftsmen whose products enjoyed World-wide repute could not
withstand the competition from the British machine-made goods. Such an
unprecedented destruction of the whole established economic order could not but
lead to a great upheaval.
(c) Social: The degration of the upper classes of India brought about by British rule
deprived the people of India of their traditional and natural leaders. The British had
started their rule with a strong bias against zamindars. For a time this bias was
abandoned and the permanent Land Revenue System concluded with zamindars, to
some extent boosted up the latter. But these new zamindars were not the traditional
zamindars of old but anew class which owned its existence to the varying British
policy. Soon after the British Government established direct relations for collection
of land revenue with the peasants. The result was that there was a great social
revolution. The erstwhile zamindars were disfranchised and were turned into
distressed brooders. When the zero hour was struck by sepoys in 1857, they rose in
their thousands against the British. Most notably was the part played by the
Taulkdars of Oudh who were dispossessed in their summary settlements made

120
 immediately after the annexation of Oudh. Besides the land revenue policy of the
Government, their policy towards the State and their preference in employment of
English-knowing Indians went a long way in degrading the status and influence of
the upper classes of our society of those days.
(d) Religious: The above-mentioned political economic and social grievances reinforced
the widely current suspicion that the British were out to convert Indians to
Christianity. Rightly or wrongly, it was believed that Lord Canning had been
specifically sent to India for converting Indians into Christians. The activities of the
missionaries were in full swing. They not only propagated the gospel of the Bible but
also made irresponsible attacks on Hinduism and Islam. The Government could not
be dissociated from the work of the missionaries, because they carried on their work
under the protection of the police provided by the government. The people of India
felt that their religions were in danger, and their fears were not entirely unfounded.
The chairman of the Directors of the East India Company, Mr. Mangles, made the
following observations in the House of Commons: “Providence has entrusted the
extensive empire of Hindustan to England, in order that the banner of Christ should
wave triumphant from one end of the India to the other. Everyone must exert all his
strength in continuing in the country the grand work of making India Christian.” The
open letter of Edmund circulated to the principal officers of the Government was
quite significant. It said, “The time had clearly come when there should be but one
faith”. Such comments left absolutely no doubt in the minds of our people about the
real intentions of the rulers. Terrified as they were, Indians could not give any credit
to the British for their abolition of Satior their validation of widow remarriage or
such innovations as the laying of railways or the errection of telegraph lines. All
appeared to our countrymen to be a part of the grand design to proselytise them. In
the same light was viewed the introduction of common messing in jails, as also the
Act 21 of 1850 which enabled converts to inherit their ancestral property. As Sir
Syad Ahmed Khan explained, this Act was necessarily intended to facilitate
conversions to Christianity. Indians have been dubbed as conservative and orthodox
for their opposition to the social and religious reforms introduced by the government.
But this is not the whole truth. They wanted to live according to their own way, and
they could not and would not tolerate any interference with this. Above all, they
wished to preserve their religions and their way of living and there was nothing
conservative about it.
(e) Military: Last but not the least important (some consider it the most important) were
the military causes. The sepoys of the British Indian army were most unhappy with
their employers. They were contemptuously treated and were called “niggers” and
“Sooers” (pigs) by their officers. They were lowly paid, much less than the British
soldiers of the corresponding ranks. The highest position that a sepoy could attain
was the rank of a Subedar at 60-70 rupees per month; for on equivalent rank, an

121
Englishman drew ten times more. The sepoys had lost all faith in the promises of
their British officers, as many a time in the past promises had been made only to be
broken regarding the payment of “Bhatta” to them while serving in the border
provinces of Sindh and Punjab. They also nourished grievances on religious and
caste grounds. They had been forbidden to gear caste marks, beards or turbans. In
1856, an Act known as the General Enlistment Act was passed under which every
fresh recruit had to furnish an undertaking that he would be prepared to go for
garrison duty wherever required. This applied only to the new recruits, but the
sepoys already in service could not forget how on several occasions even they had
been sent to foreign countries in spite of their earnest protests. They were afraid that
the chances of so doing would be very much enhanced under the new Act. Moreover,
the Act was a direct attack upon the Hindu caste system, as the popular belief among
the Hindus was that crossing the seas meant loss of caste. The culmination came
when the greased cartridge was put into use. Besides, the sepoys, could not be
detached from the society to which they belonged, and they shared all those fears
and suspicions which were at the time assailing the mind of their kiths and kins
unconnected with the army. Like the general mass of people, they were also
seriously concerned about the activities of the missionaries and the innovations
introduced by the government. Similarly, the degradation of the princes, particularly
the ruler of Oudh-the home state of a large number of sepoys of Bengal Army—
caused serious offence to them. Rightly did they complain thus: “We have
ungrudgingly shed our blood in the service of our foreign masters, we have
conquered for them Kingdom after kingdom until nothing remained to be annexed
within the four corners of the country, but what has been the return? Spolaition on
our peoples, degradation of our princes and worst of all inconceivable insults of our
religion.” The lowered prestige of the British due to the reverses suffered by their
armies in Afghanistan and the Punjab, the withdrawal of large number of Europeans
from India for the Crimean War (1854-56), the stationing of the majority of the
remainder of the European troops on or near the north-western frontier, the low
calibre of the British military officers and the faulty constitution of the Bengal Army
created favourable conditions for the sepoys to make a bid not so much to secure
redress of their grievances as a vindication of their religion and national self-respect
by throwing off the foreign yoke. The sepoy task was greatly facilitated by low state
of discipline rampant in the Bengal Army which was due to a number of factors —
(1) all promotions were given on the basis of seniority, so that officers at the top
were generally dull and decrepit;(2) the best army officers were given civilian
assignments, (3) officers who remained with the units had no power to reward on
punish the troops placed under their charge; (4) acts of indiscipline, whenever they
occurred, were not firmly dealt with.

122
The increased ratio of Indian troops to British troops in India gave a sense of self-
confidence to the Indiantroops. There were small mutinies or near-mutinies at different
places. These were signs of hatred between white and coloured people. Almost all of
them were caused by the fear that the British were trying to break caste and convert the
sepoys to Christianity. Ramours started circulating among the native soldiers. It was
rumoured that all the armies of the Company had been killed in Burma and all the British
troops killed in the Crimean War. It was said that English women were to be brought to
India to marry Indian princes whose children would then become Christians and all
sepoys would be baptised. There was to be a mass murder of sepoys by a mine under the
parade ground. The British had polluted sugar and mixed ground bullock’s bones with
flour and the sepoys were to be forced to eat cow’s flesh. Although the Government heard
all these rumours, it did nothing to discount them. Ignoring the fact that the Indian
soldiers regarded service as a trade guild in which son followed father in the handing of
weapons, the Government officers continued to disregard their customs and religions.
Though outwardly all seemed to be calm, below the surface, there was a highly
inflammable situation and some common cause was required to unite the different
religions against the British and that was provided by the introduction of the greased
cartridge.
The Government decided to equip the army with Enfield rifles. To load the new rifle
entailed extracting from a pouch a cartridge with a greased patch at the top which was
torn off with the teeth and then used to assist in ramming the bullet down the barrel. It
was believed that the grease used was made from the fact of cows or pigs. To both the
Hindus and the Muslims, the use of the greased cartridges was against their religion. The
sepoys saw in it an attempt to break their caste and force them to become Christians. At
first slowly and then with increasing anger as the stories were spread by agitators, the
Indian regiments refused to accept the greased cartridges. General Hearsey and others
warned the Government against the use of the greased cartridges which seemed to be
causing so much anger and distress among the sepoys and suggested that the sepoys be
allowed to make their own grease, but they were over-ruled by the Adjutant-General who
felt that it might make the sepoys think that the old cartridges which they had been using
were contaminated. On his advice, Lord Canning decided that the concession would be
weakness and ordered that the cartridges must be used. The British officers who
understood their men, were astonished. Loyal servants began to drop hints of sepoys
meeting to plot mutiny. Although the information was passed on to the Commander-in-
Chief of India, nothing was done to redress the grievance of the sepoys. Bahadur Shah,
the Mughal Emperor, rightly pointed out that the mighty Englishmen who boasted of
having defeated Russia and Iran, wee overthrown in India-by a simple cartridge. It was
there refusal of the sepoys at Meerut to use the greased cartridges that led to the
beginning of the revolt which later on spread to Delhi and other parts of India.

123
Nature and Character of the Uprising
In the introductory remark only a passing reference to the nature and character of the
uprising of 1857 had been made. Now we shall examine these two allied and connected
aspects in some detail. Undoubted there are still many conflicting interpretations. Here
we shall make an attempt to see how far these diverse points of view are tenable.
There has been and still is a lot of controversy about the true character of the rising of
1857. Kaye and Malleson who have written several volumes on it are of the view that it
was nothing more than a mutiny. John Lawrence who investigated the matter on behalf of
the Government of India expressed the same view. According to Savarkar, it was a war of
national independence. P.C. Joshi and Asoka Mehta subscribe to the same view. Outram
holds that it was the result of a Mohammedan conspiracy making capital of Hindu
grievance, and the cartridge incident merely precipitated it and it broke out before this
military uprising had been thoroughly planned and adequate arrangements for its
simultaneous outbreak at important political centres of the country had been finalised. Dr.
R.C. Majumdar terms this uprising of 1857 as the Sepoy Mutiny, whereas Dr. Sen prefers
to call it an army upsurge which possessed some characteristics of a war of national
independence.
It is difficult to say with certainty which of the above views is correct. Nevertheless a few
things do stand out prominently about the nature of this uprising. There was on prior
preparation, planning or conspiracy. The circulation of chappaties prior to the revolt does
not prove anything because it meant different things for different people. The Rani of
Jhansi’s Hindi letter to her pries at Puri, which is often quoted as a proof of pre-planning,
has been proved to be a piece of forgery. Wilson who believed that a date and a time had
been fixed for a simultaneous rising at all the military stations of India has given to
evidence in support of his contention. There are no two opinions that this rising
originated with the army. But that does not necessarily mean that it was a mutiny caused
merely by the military grievances. The very fact that the Meerut rebels immediately after
they had broken out of their barracks marched upon Delhi and proclaimed Bahadur Shah
II, the Emperor of India indicates that the rising was not devoid of a political bias. It is
not very difficult to see why the British writers sought to dismiss this uprising as mere
mutiny. Their racial arrogance and their presumptuous behaviour coupled with many of
their administrative lapses and other misdeeds helped to generate a strong anti-British
feeling in the country. True that the revolt began with the army but the civilian
participation played a big and positive role in its furtherance.
Besides having their specific grievances, the sepoys fully shared with the people the
general grievance that the British Government was out to destroy the faith and to disrupt
their caste or social fabric. When the sepoys rebelled, they did so as much as sepoys as
the representatives of their people. Their example was followed by the civilian (at some
places even preceded). This was but natural. The sepoys were the best organised group of

124
Indian; moreover they had learnt a good deal of discipline and leadership from the British
rulers whom they had served faithfully in the past. Hencea popular rebellion could take
place only after and not before, arising of the sepoys.
The revolt of 1857 was from every aspect “localised, restricted and unorganised”. Thus is
suffered from several limitations. It has to be conceded that a vast majority of the people
did not participate in it; only one-sixth of the total area of the country was affected by it.
But that is no reason to dismiss this uprising as a mere mutiny. It is well-known that in
many revolutions, the initiative has been taken first by a coterie of individually—a
determined minority who gave the lead while the overwhelming majority remained
passive. For example, there was a strong loyalist party in America during the War of
American Independence and yet the Revolution soon acquired a national dimension
though it originated over an issue which was not a major one and its leadership, though
determined, was yet restricted. During the stormy days of the French Revolution too,
there was no lack of royalists in France. In fact, as pointed out by Dr. Sen, “so long as a
substantial majority sympathises with the main object of the movement, it can claim a
national status though universal support may be wanting”.
The revolt of 1857 may be called national thought in a limited sense. Though the leaders
of the revolt were often selfish and none-too competent, they succeeded in securing the
support of the people which made the revolt, somewhat broad-based. The uprising was
national in yet another sense. The leaders of the revolt were unanimous in their primary
aim, namely, to throw out the British from the Indian soil. It was also national in so far as
it was joint Hindu-Muslim effort. Outram’s view that it was the result of a Mohammedan
conspiracy making capital of Hindu grievances in a way lends strength to the view that
both the major communities of India had at least on this occasion displayed a sense of
national unity. In fact, Hindus and Muslims were so strongly united at this time that all
the efforts of the British to drive a wedge between them ended in smoke. When at one
time some misguided Muslims tried to start a ‘jehad’ against the Hindus, the Mughal
Emperor immediately put his foot down and firmly warned his co-religionist to that there
was only one “jehad” and that was against the British!
But it would be wrong to call the revolt a national war in the modern sense of the term.
Indian nationalism as understood today was something unknown then. Our people did not
think then of India as a distinct political unit. Neither were they fully conscious about the
democratic process by which power must be wielded by the people themselves and
exercised through their duly elected representatives. Such ideas took birth after the revolt
during the second half of the nineteenth century.
In a way, the uprising of 1857 was a feudal revolt led by the princes and zamindars, for
the recovery of their old positions of power privilege and for the reinstatement of the old
political order. But had they succeeded, perhaps, the result would not have been exactly
to their liking because the circumstances had in the meanwhile radically changed. There

125
were already signs that the army leadership both at Delhi and Lucknow would not tolerate
the re-establishment of the ancient regime as it existed before the establishment of the
British rule.
The revolt was also characterised by an outburst of peasant activity. The peasants took
advantage of the new situation and tried to take revenge against their oppressors, namely
the money-lenders, new landlords, and the petty government officers. At several places,
account books of the banias and revenue records of the government officers were set on
fire. These facts, however, do not warrant the conclusion drawn by a group of historians
that the revolt was a “people’s war”. The peasants had no organisation of their own. They
merely followed the leadership of the feudal chief, and when the latter failed, they
withdrew from active participation in the insurrection.
Some British writers have called the revolt the last passionate protest of the conservative
forces in India against the penetration of the western ideas. The view is based on the
presumption that the rebels were opposed to the social reforms introduced by the British.
While this is true in a limited sense, it is not the whole truth, for besides social reforms,
there were several other factors which had actuated the insurgents to revolt. It would be
unfair to call them conservatives if they sought to defend their religion from the corrosive
influences of Christianity. In fact, certain actions of the British Government, like
allowing the Christian converts of inherit property, the legislations of widow-remarriage
and the extension of benevolent patronage to the Christian missions engendered a genuine
fear in the minds of the Indian people that the government was out to make India a
Christian country. It was certainly not a “reactionary” or “conservative” approach which
led the people to protest against an administrative outlook which was alien to the Indians
and the policy of racial segregation so outrageously practiced by some of the Britishers.
The indecent haste with which western reforms and innovations were forced down the
unwilling throats of the Indians was bound to leave bitterness among the Indians.
Possibly, this was the reason why the insurgents betrayed some reactionary tendencies for
which Dr. Majumdar roundly childes them.
The view of Dr. Tara Chand is that while it is inappropriate to give the designation of
Mutiny to see events of 1857, it is also not proper to call them. The National War of
Independence. It has to be admitted that the war against the British was not inspired by
any sentiment of nationalism because in 1857 India was not yet politically a nation. It is
true that the Hindus and Muslims cooperated but their leaders and followers were moved
by personal loyalties and not loyalty to a common motherland. Nevertheless, the
unpheaval of 1857 was a war for the liberation of India from the yoke of the foreigner
because he had given moral offenceto the dignity and self-respect of the ruling class
which exercised social influence and carried the burden of administration. He had also
antagonised the masses by his oppressive land revenue policy and economic measures
which ruined their arts and crafts. On the whole the rising of 1857 was a general

126
movement of the traditional elite of the Hindus and Muslims. The Emperor of Delhi, the
King of Avadh, some Nawabs and Rajas, the Taluqdars and Zamindars and the soldiers
comprised the main body of the rebels. There is no doubt that practically all those who
belonged to that order were disaffected although some of them had abstained from active
participation on account of their peculiar circumstances. The chiefs and landlords
constituted the leadership of this rebellious host. The regular and irregular troops of the
English company and of the princes became their followers. They had common traditions
and grievances and they sympathised with one another in their misfortunes. The loss of
territories and political power affected all of them.
Dr. Bisheshwar Prasad writes that the movement of 1857 was universal in its nature
comprehending every region of India within its purview. It is this comprehensiveness
which givesthe impression of its being a national Revolt against foreign rule, primarily
motivated by a desire for freedom. The end of alien rule was the essential object, the chief
purpose and in this sense the Revolt of 1857 may be termed a national war for freedom,
thought the sentiments of nationalism in the modern sense had not taken deep roots in the
soil of India at the time. The urge was political though religion was invoked to rouse the
people to a pitch of frenzy, compatible with the needs of the situation (Bondage and
Freedom, pp.576-77).
Thus, the uprising of 1857, starting from the cantonment of Meerut, soon infected Delhi
and other important political centres in Northern India, because the British rule had
certainly made many Indian resentful of the British rule for its arbitrariness and the airs of
superiority assumed by the British administrators. The British rule was based on concepts
foreign to the Indians. Some of the Britishers displayed racial arrogance of a type which
Indians had probably never suffered from any of those innumerable foreign hordes which
had so repeatedly poured into India during her long and chequered course of history.
Indians were slighted, insulted and discriminated, insulted and discriminated against. This
generated a strong and widespread sentiment of bitterness which found a convenient
outlet when the sepoys of Meerut unleashed their violence.
Let close this study by reproducing the profound comments of the late Maulana Abul
Kalam Azad regarding the nature and character of the uprising of 1857: “After reading
the various accounts of 1857, certain conclusions appears to be inescapable. The question
naturally arises if the uprising was the result of a nationalist uprising alone? The answer
cannot be an unqualified affirmative if nationalism is understood in the modern sense.
There is no doubt that the participants were moved by patriotic considerations, but these
were not strong enough to provoke a revolt. Patriotism had to be reinforced by an appeal
to religious passions before the people rose. The propaganda about the greased cartridges
is only one instance of this. In other ways also the religious feelings of the soldiers had to
be wounded before they were roused against their foreign master.”

127
 The Failure and Impact of the Great Rebellion

Cause of the Failure of the “Mutiny”

The revolt which began in Meerut on May 10, 1857, spread like wildfire. Within a short
time of its outbreak, the English Empire in Upper India had been shaken to its very
foundations. Between the frontiers of Bengal and Punjab, English authority was
acknowledged only for a few miles around Agra and other areas where British regiments
were stationed. The swift and staggering blow of the upsurge undoubtedly made the
position of the British precarious in upper India, but unfortunately the rebels failed to
press home their advantages. What had started with a bang ended as a whimper. There
were numerous factors which led to this turn of fortune.
The revolt suffered from many handicaps. It has been estimated that not more than one-
fourth of the total area and not more than one-tenth of the total population was affected
by this unpheaval. The Indian intelligentsia impresses with western civilisation was,
generally speaking, strongly in favour of the British and lent no support to the rebels
whose ideas seemed to be too reactionary to them. Similarly, the commercial and the
landed classes gave their overwhelming support to the British. Again, it would not be
correct to assume that the Indian troops revolted everywhere in India. At this time the
three Presidencies of Calcutta, Bombay and Madras had their separate military set-ups
and only the Calcutta troops mutinies. The Indian sepoys of the Bombay and Madras
Presidencies remained loyal to the Company. Another Potent factor for the failure of the
revolt was the apathy of a vast number of Indian princes who preferred to follow a
cautious policy of “watch and see” at a time when their support would have titled the
balance decidedly against the British. Some of them like the Nizam, Sindhia and Holkar,
rendered active assistance to the Company against their own countrymen. Possibly this
revolt could not have been suppressed by the British without the active support of the
Indians themselves.
It has also been suggested that the rebels suffered from lack of able leadership. With the
honourable exception of the brave Rani Laxmibai of Jhansi, most of the leaders of the
revolt were self-seeking opportunists. Sir John Lawrence hit the nail on the head when he
exclaimed, “Had a single leader of ability arisen among them (rebels)…. We must have
been lost beyond redemption.” As pointed out by Roberts, “After they had revolted they
seemed to become demented in their manner of conducting the rebellion, and often took
the one course that was foredoomed to failure.” The victories of the Indians, whenever
and wherever they were won, were due more to their superior numbers than to their
superior strategy or tactics. Dr. R.C. Majumdar in his able treatise on the uprising of 1857
feels that none of the Indian leaders was moved by pure patriotism. This is only partly

128
true. There is no denying that this uprising produced many outstanding leaders whose
patriotism was of the purest form. Even British historians who were naturally prejudiced
have singled out the Rani of Jhansi for her continuing patriotic and distinguished and able
leadership. Then there were other dedicated leaders like Ahmed Ullah Shah, the Maulavi
of Faizabad, and Tantya Tope about whose single-minded sincerity and true patriotic
favour there are hardly any two opinions. A British historian has painted the character of
the Maulavi thus “if a patriot is a man who plots and fights for the independence,
wrongfully destroyed of his native country, then most certainly the Maulavi was a true
patriot. He had not stained his sword by assassination, he had connived at no murders; he
had fought honourably and stubbornly in the field against the strangers, and his memory
is entitled to the respect of the brave and the true-hearted of all nations.”
It cannot, however, be denied, that many leaders of the revolt had a petty mind inside
their brave exterior. Selfish can mutually jealous, they frequently intrigued against one
another. These personal jealousies, and mutual dissensions weakened the common cause
and also divided the ranks. It is sad to note that a respected leader of the revolt like Nana
Saheb offered to come to terms with the British if the Government reversed its decision
regarding him and met his demands. It is significant that the rebel leaders could not chalk
out a common plan of resistance against the British and consequently what the British
forces often faced were filfull raids. In striking contrast, the British fought with
determination and courage.
It was also a great tragedy for India that the Mughal Emperor, Bahadur Shah, in whom
the rebels had pinned their faith, “was not fit to serve even as a symbol”. He was not
made to be a leader. “He was so weak he could not control either the soldiers or the
nobility”. The rebels did not select any other over-all leader of theirs for still the awe and
izzat of the Mughal dynasty was deeply embedded in their ranks. On the other hand all
the British leaders felt that they were fighting against a national calamity—existence of
British rule in India. British military leaders like Campbell, Havelock, Roberts, Rose,
Outram, Nicholson, Neill, Edwardes and the Lawrences were all men of ability and
possessed high qualities of leadership and sincerity of purpose.
Lack of co-ordination between the different centres of revolt was an inevitable
consequence of the faulty Indian leadership. Besides, the rebels were seriously
handicapped by the shortage of firearms. Swords could be no match to the English rifles.
There is much truth in the assertion of Charles Bell that if the sepoys of Bengal had held
the Enfield rifles in their hand, Then “Delhi might still have belonged to the Mughals;
and in the place of a wretched charpoy in a prison chamber, the descendant of Timur
might even now be sitting upon the crystal throne in the palace of his ancestors.”
Luck also came to the help of the British in their fight against the Indian insurgents.
When the revolt broke out, the Crimean War (1854-56) and the war with Persia were
over. And the British army was in fine mettle. A new treaty of friendship had been signed

129
with Dost Mohammed Khan, the Amir of Afghanistan, who kept himself aloof from the
Indian affairs. As a result of this treaty, the Russian threat to the Indian frontier had
considerably receded. The British were free now to deal with the Indian revolt. There was
another factor which the rebels had not reckoned with that the England would declare war
against China. Considerable European forces for development in that country sailed
through the Indian Ocean, within hailing distance of Calcutta. Metcalfe has remarked that
“to this fortuitous circumstances under God’ providence was due the early re-
establishment of British authority in North-Western India.
Most important of all the causes contributing the failure of the great uprising of 1857-58
was the sad fact “that Indian character had sunk very low”. Here again let me use the
words of Maulana Abdul Kalam Azad: “The leaders of the revolt could never agree. They
were mutually jealous and continually intrigued against one another. They seemed to
have little regard for the effects of such disagreement on the common cause.” In fact,
these personal jealousies and intrigues were largely responsible for the Indian defeat.
The view of Dr. A.R. Deasi is that while England was a capitalist country, India was
essentially feudal and there victory of the former was a foregone conclusion. To quote
him, “A capitalist nation is socially, politically economically and culturally stronger than
a feudal people. A capitalist nation has a high sense of patriotism and nationalism since,
unlike the feudal people who are physically separated, socially disunited and political
regime and single economic system. This is why throughout the whole history of British
conquest, we hardly come across Britons who betrayed the interests of Britain in India, in
contrast to hundreds of Indian Princes, Generals and merchants who went over to the
British and assisted them to dominate India.” R.P. Dutt says, “The rising of 1857 was in
its essential character and dominant leadership the revolt of the old conservative and
feudal forces and dethroned potentates for their rights and privileges which they saw in
process for destruction. The reactionary character of the rising prevented any wide
measure of popular support and doomed it to failure.” (India Today, p. 274).
Results of the “MUTINY”
“The Mutiny cannot be dismissed as an unhappy incident which ended with its
suppression.” It was realised that this revolt was only a symptom of a deep-seated
disorder— the chronic maladjustmentbetween the introduction of western ideas and the
limited scope given to the Indian intelligentsia. With this realisation the policy of the
Government of India underwent a drastic modification. In fact, it is impossible to
understand the post-rebellion India without a proper appreciation of the impact made by
the uprising of 1857.
Political: The first and immediate result of the revolt was that the fate of the English East
India Company was sealed. An Act known as “Act for Better Government of India” was
rushed through the British Parliament which transferred power from the Company to the
Crown. The Court of Directors and Proprietors as well as the single member Board of

130
Control were abolished. A new administrative machinery consisting of a Secretary of
State with a Council of 15 members (to be called the India Council) was created to
supervise the administration of India on behalf of the Crown. On the face of it, a big
change seems to have beeneffected. But actuallyit was not so. H.S. Cunningham has
pointed out that the change made was rather formal than substantial. The East India
Company had already been divested of all its power. The entire trend of constitutional
development since the Pitt’s India Act of 1748 lay in the direction of the curtailment of
the authority of the Company. The Charter Act of 1853 coming at the end of a long series
of such Acts deprived the Directors of the Company of the last vestiges of their power
and privileges and throwing open the civil services of India to competition. Hence
forward, there was no doubt about the early end of the company’s rule. The revolt of
1857 only provided the most suitable occasion for the final liquidation of the Company.
The formal nature of the change is also proved by the fact that all the treaty obligations,
financial commitments and administrative liabilities of the East India Company were
taken over by the Crown. Whether it was a change really for the better Government of
India, as the name of the Act of 1858 shows, is rather doubtful. Under the rule of the
Company, the entire gamut of its Indian administration was subject to the scrutiny by the
British Parliament which often carried out a minute and critical examination of the Indian
affairs of the Company at least once in every twenty years. This was a very healthy
practice and much good resulted from this. These periodical checks, which were quite
through-going, kept the Company officials constantly on their toes. They could not afford
to be too arbitrary and unreasonable in the administration of the country, for they knew
that there was the British Parliament which kept a close watch over its activities. There
was no such periodical examinations after 1858. Parliamentary interest in the Indian
affairs fiagged so much that quite often after 1858 the two Houses of Parliament were
found to be empty when Indian affairs were under discussion.
The revolt of 1857, however, forced the British Government to make a new declaration of
their policy. This was done in the form of the Queen’s Proclamation issued in 1858. The
Proclamation breathed feelings of benevolence and religious toleration. It disclaimed all
desire for extension of territory, promised to respect the rights, dignity and honour of the
(native) princes of India and pledged to follow a policy of religious toleration. It declared
it to be the policy of Her Majesty’s Government that “so far as may be, Our subjects of
whether race or creed, be freely and impartially admitted to offices on Our services, the
duties of which they be qualified by their education, ability and integrity, duty to
discharge” pardon and amnesty were granted to all those still in arms against the British
Government provided they had not been found guilty of the murder of British subjects.
The Proclamation was an exhortation to the Government of India to take adequate
measures for the material and moral improvement of the Indian people. It marked a great
shift in the policy of the British towards India. The spirit underlying the Proclamation, its
dignified language, its promises and exceptions promised were all keyed in a very high

131
moral pitch, but it is a sad fact that it remained an unattainable ideal because the people
who were entrusted with the implementation of these high-sounding ideal because the
people who were entrusted with the implementation of these high-sounding ideals,
honoured it more in breach than in observance.
Compatible with one of the assurance of this Proclamation, a new policy was definitely
initiated towards the Indian States. ‘Sanads’ were issued to the Indian princes
guaranteeing them freedom of adopting heir and the continued existence of their states.
Thus was remedied the one major grievance of the Indian Princes. Henceforward if there
was any dereliction of duty on the part of a ruler he alone was to be held responsible;
misgovernment was no longer an excuse for the extinction of the Indian States. For this
concession, the rulers had to pay a very heavy price. From now onwards their status
underwent a great change. Their political authority was no longer unlimited. Realising
that it was no longer necessary of politically expedient to annex any state, the British
Government assumed the “moral responsibility for the good government of the States and
extended its interference to cove internal affairs.24
The Queen’s Proclamation was not an unmixed blessing. The new policy of perpetuating
the existing Indian States under all circumstances was a kind of setback to the healthy
process of political unification which had been going on before the year 1857. This was
the time when the anomalous existence of some six hundred odd States could have been
wiped off and India could have become a single and compact political unit. This
continued balkanization of India continued till very recently, when Sardar Patel took the
bold step of abolishing these artificial barrier towards the integration and unification of
our motherland.
After the revolt of 1857, “there came” , the words of Sir John Strachey, “a flood of
reactionary opinions over the British Government and its officers” on the political plan,
the British Government encouraged an alliance’ between the Indian Princes, landlords,
money-lenders and the British, who thought that it would be very difficult for them to
rule permanently if they adopted policies, “by which the better classes of the natives of
Hindustan would remain alienated from us (i.e. British)”. It was in pursuance of this
policy that two-thirds of the talukdars of Oudh were rehabilitated “as a necessary element
in the social constitutions of the province”. These classes came to have a vested interest
in the British rule. The British rule was, so to speak, underwritten by these classes. It was
for the same purpose that in 1862 a proposal was even approved for the extension of the
permanent Land Revenue System of Bengal, Bihar and Orisa, to the rest of India. If
ultimately the proposal was dropped in 1883, this was because the financial implications
of this proposal would have entailed a very a heavy burden and strain upon the
Government.

24
The relations of the Government of India with the Indian States from 1857 onwards will be discussed
separately in another lesson.

132
Social and Cultural: On the social and cultural planes, the old policy of promoting
reforms was abandoned because it was contended that it was this policy which had been
one of the important causes of the rising of 1857. The British Government was
determined not to sponsor any social reform for fear of antagonising Indian sentiment. “A
nervous fear of altering native customs has, ever-since the terrible events of 1857, taken
possession of Indian administrators.” (Sir Henry Maine). The British in India began
jealously to guard and preserve the social and religious survivals against the demands of
the progressive elements in the Indian Society. The cause of reform was now wholly left
to the initiative of the Indians themselves. And this continued to be the basic policy of the
Government of India for over half a century.
Another effect of the Revolt of 1857 was that the Muslim Renaissance which had been
growing in Delhi before 1857 got an irreparable shock. The cultural blossoms were
blighted. C.F. Andrews writes, “It is not difficult to trace the fatal havoc to budding
spiritual life which one year of Mutiny wrought. Decay immediately overtook the revival
of learning in Delhi from which it never recovered.” Calcutta, the centre of Hindu
renaissance, escaped the horrors of the Mutiny and was saved.
Army: The army and the Muslims were regarded by the British as the chief instigators of
the revolt. They, therefore, received special attention. The army was reorganised after
1858. The proportion of British troops in the Indian army was increased, and they were
primarily used as an “army of occupation” to maintain internal security, while the Indian
troops were organised and trained for services aboard to subjugate Asian and African
territories for British imperialism. The artillery was taken away from the Indian hands.
All higher appointments were reserved for the British; an Indian could not get
employment in the Army Headquarters except as a clerk in a non-military capacity. The
Indian armies were recognised on the basis of “division and counterpoise”. To take an
example, battalions were drawn from such diverse elements as the Sikhs, the Punjab
Muslims, the Pathans, the Rajputs, the Gurkhas, etc. and it was quite easy for the British
to exploit communal, caste and regional difference of the sepoyed. This was done with a
view to making united action on the part of the various units of the army impossible.
A subtle distinction was also drawn between “martial” and “non-material” raises and the
Indian troops were mostly recruited from the Panjab and Garhwal. The Sikhs and
Gurkahs were termed as the “martial race”. It interesting to note that before the Great
Uprising the bulk of the troops, of the Bengal army were drawn from Bihar and Oudhie.
One cannot escape the conclusion that the distinction between the “material” and “non-
martial” was deliberately drawn up so as to discredit and punish the people of those areas
where the uprising had been active and to reward the Gurkhas and the Sikhs who had
generally remained loyal to the British in those critical days.
As a result of the Revolt, changes were made in the judicial field. New Civil and Criminal
Procedure Codes were passed. The judiciary was reorganised under the Indian High

133
Courts Act, 1861. High Courts were established at Calcutta, Bombay and Madras in place
of the Sadar Courts and Supreme Courts which had existed before the Revolt. The
exclusive jurisdiction of Courts over British Criminal Procedure.
The Post-Mutiny Period
Even when the Government of India was taken over from the English East India
Company in 1858, things did not improve and the condition of the people of India
became all the more worse. The public debt of India continued to increase. It was £ 70
million in 1858 and during the next 18 years it rose to $140 million. By the end of the
19th century, it was near about $224 million. The expenses which increased the public
debt of India were the cost of the Revolt of 1857, the price of the transfer of the right of
the English Company to the Crown, the expenses of miscellaneous wars in China and
Abyssinia, and every item of Government expenditure in London which remotely related
to India. On his debt, India had to pay increasing amounts as interest. The total interest on
public debt for 10 years ending 1887 amounted to more than Rs. 119 crores.
Wasteful Expenditure
There was a lot of wasteful expenditure which adversely affected Indian economy.
Thousands of India troops were sent outside India and they were all paid out of Indian
revenues. A large number of Europeans were employed in the army in India and they
were paid fabulous amounts. A lot of money was wasted in aggressive wars and the
Government of India had to pay for it. A reference in this connection may be made to the
wars in Afghanistan and Burma. The people of India protested and contended that as
England was going to benefit from these wars, she must also pay for the same but that
was not acceptable to the British Government. A lot of money was spent in building
barracks, military roads, railways, telegraphs and defence outposts after 1858. Mr.
Maclean observed thus in the British Parliament; “We have formed a vast camp at Quetta:
We have made roads and railways through various passes along the frontier and every
year the expenditure goes on. Naturally the appetite for that sort of expenditure grows
with what it feeds upon. The military engineers no sooner make one pass secure than they
find another by which they can be taken in flank, and then an immense outcry is raised
about the necessity of further defence… And the Amir of Afghanistan looked at all these
fortifications, telegraphs and extension of railways with the utmost discomfort and
jealousy.”
The people resented the enormous waste of the money in the construction of the railway
in India. Most of the railways were constructed for strategic purpose with no regard for
economy. As a matter of fact, money was recklessly wasted. Huge amounts were
borrowed from England and squandered in India, William Massey, a Finance Member of
the Government of India observed. “The East India Railway cost far more if not twice as
much, as it ought to have cost; enormous sums were lavished, and the contractors had no
motive whatsoever for economy. All the money came from the English capitalist, and so

134
long as he was guaranteed 5 per cent on the revenues of India, it was immaterial to
brick.” A similar observation was made by Lord Lawrence in these words: “I think it is
notorious in India among almost every class…that the railways have been extravagantly
made; that they have cost a great deal more than they are worth, ought to have cost,
Critics maintain that railways “resulted in the exploitation of our resources by the indigo,
tea coffee and other planter.” The construction of military railways on a large scale
brought no gain to the people. As almost all the capital was subscribed by the English
capitalists, the entire profits were also carried away by them. About £5,750,000 were
taken away in 1894-95 alone. Railways constituted a drain on India in the form of interest
on capital, purchase of stock in England and excessive salaries paid to Europeans. It was
pointed out than the 1897,4,692 Europeans employed on the railways drew salaries
amounting to more than Rs. 80 lakhs, whereas 206,047 Indian employees drew not even
one-fifth of the above amount.
A lot of money was wasted on palatial buildings, costly Durbars and state ceremonies.
The Governor of Madras had three official residences at Madras, Ootacamund and
Guindy. These places were very expensive. A lot of money was wasted not only on the
places of the Governors and Lieutenant-Governors, but also on their country houses, their
residence in the hills, their banquets and entertainments, their retinue of servants, their
carriages and horses, their special trains, their tents, their armies of retainers and camp
followers. Blunt writes, “There is surely no country in the world where in the midst of
such starvation, there is so much of waste; certainly none where the expense of it all is
borne so wholly and directly by the poor. I wonder whether anyone has calculated the
number of miles of macadamised roads in the various Anglo-Indian cantonments not a
yard of which has ever served any purpose beyond that of enabling the officers’ wives to
pay each other visits in their carriages? I wonder whether anyone has calculated the
number of absolutely useless clock-towers and Gothic memorials erected by Sir Richard
Temple to Sir Bartle Freres, and Sir Bartle Freres to Sir Richard Temple in various
Presidencies? I wonder whether anyone has calculated how many hogheads of
champagne the water-drinking ryot has paid for the last half century as an unaccounted
item of his yearly budget ?”
Critics point out that while the Colonial Office was built at a cost of £1,00,000 and the
same was paid out of British revenues, the Indian Office was built at a cost of £5,00,000
and the same was paid our of the Indian revenues. The Indian Office establishment cost
the Indian exchequer £6,00,000 every year. The India Office Library cost £70,000. The
Engineering College was constructed at a cost of £1,00,000 and the same was paid out of
the Indian revenues and also maintained at the cost of India. All the highest paid jobs in
India in all the departments were the monopoly of the Englishmen or Europeans. It is
estimated that in 1885 there were 2,388 officers drawing Rs. 10,000 a year and upwards
and out of them 60 were Indians and the rest were all Europeans of Englishmen.

135
The people resented the heavy cost of civil services in the Country. The salaries and
expenses of the civil departments of the Governments of India exceeded Rs. 112 crores in
the ten years ending 1887 and Rs 151½ in the ten years ending 1900-1. The salaries of the
British officials of India were excessive and exorbitant. In India the Viceroy was paid Rs.
2,40,000 a year in addition to other allowance. The annual salary of the Prime Minister of
England was Rs. 50,000 but the Lieutenant-Governors in India got Rs.1,00,000 and the
Governors Rs. 1,28,000. There was also the drain of India’s wealth to England. Every
year, India had to pay about £ 16 million on account of Home Charges which were due
from India to England on account of interest on debt, charges for civil administration,
army, stores, guaranteed railways and Madras Irrigation Works. It is calculated that India
remitted more than Rs. 50 crores in the ten years ending 1895-6. In addition to this
amount, there were other charges of the army such as rewards, pensions and gratuities
which had to be paid every year and those were Rs. 26 crores in the ten years ending
1887 and more than Rs. 35 crores in the ten years ending 1900-1. The pensions payable to
the retired military officers in England consumed almost half the salt tax gathered from
the whole of India. A Colonel of the Indian army retired on a pension of £1100 to £1200.
India lost a lot of money on account of the exchange ratio fixed by the British
Government of India. A part of the salaries received by the British and European officers
in India was also sent by them out of India. There were European and English traders,
capitalists planters, ship-owners, gold miners etc., who remitted every year huge amounts.
Dadabhai’s Drain Theory
Dadabhai Naroji was the high priest of the drain theory and for years he carried on
propaganda in its favour. His best exposition of the drain theorys to be found in his book
entitled “Poverty and Un-British Rule in India”. The view of Dadabhai was that the
economic drain was the real, the principal and even the sole cause of the suffering and
poverty of India all other reasons and causes being “only red herrings drawn across the
path”. Dadabhai maintained that the drain facilitated penetration and exploitation of India
by foreign capital. By preventing the accumulation of capital within India and by this
prostrating internal capital, the drain permitted foreign capitalists to come to the country
without having to face any indigenous competition and thereby to monopolise and to reap
all the advantages of India’s material resources. The drain acted as the chief source of the
accumulation of foreign capital invested in India because a large part of the drain was
brought back to India as foreign capital. Dadabhai went to the extent of declaring that the
entire evil of the drain was due to the excessive employment of Englishmen in Indian
administration.
Dadabhai made a comparison between the British rule in India and the previous rulers of
this country. He pointed out that although the Mughals and the Marathas plundered the
people of India, their wealth remained within the country and was spent inside it.
Individual citizens might suffer or be oppressed and deprived of their wealth, but the

136
country, as a whole did not lose, the loss of one citizen being the gain of the other. As
regards the British rule, Englishmen took wealth out of the country and spent it abroad.
Under the old rulers, even if the burden of taxation was very heavy, the economic effect
were not as disastrous for the people as the effects of taxation under the British because
then all the money realised from taxes was spent in India. In the case of the British
Government, the same was sent out of India. Even when invaders like Nadir Shah came,
they looted the country and went back immediately, and the loss of wealth was
temporary. In the case of British rule, the drain was a part of the existing system of
Government and was therefore ceaseless and continuous, increasing from year to year.
The wounds were kept perpetually open and the drain was like a running sore. The former
rulers of India was likes butcher’s chopping irregularly here and there but the mechanised
efficiency of England was cutting the very heart of the county almost with sharp surgical
knives. To quote Dadabhai, “The loot of India is a very sad one. Her conditions is that of
a master and slave; but it is that of a plundered nation in the hands of constant plunderers
with the plunder carried away clean out of the land. In the case of the plundering raid
occasionally made on India before the English came, the invaders went away and were
long intervals of security during which the land could recuperate and become again rich
and prosperous. But nothing of kind is true now. The British invasions continuous and the
plunder goes right on with no intermission and actually increases and the impoverished
Indian nation has no opportunity whatever to recuperate.”
The laisez-faire and free trade policies—their evil consequences
The Indians protested against the favour shown to British industry in India unmindful of
the adverse effect on Indian industries. The English capitalist were the favoured children
of the state. All the coalfields, gold mines, jute and hemp mills, breweries, coffee, and tea
plantations and indigo factories were exclusively in the hands of the Europeans. Three-
fourth of the woolen and paper mills, jute presses, oil mills, timber mills, cotton ginning
and pressing factories etc., were owned by Europeans. All the shipping trade, railways
and banks were in their hands. Mr. Macleon rightly stated in the House of Commons in
1900, “All the renouncers of India may be said to be mortgaged to this country.” Customs
duties on the import of British cotton goods were abolished although that meant an
annual-loss of crores or rupees to the Indian exchequer. Later on, when 5 per cent import
duty was levied on cotton manufacturer from England, a similar duty was imposed on the
cotton manufactures in India. India was held and governed in the interest of the British
merchants. She was defenceless in matters where the English and Indian interests clashed.
The people of India condemned the free trade policy followed by the Government of
India with regard to the import of British goods. The view of Dadabhai Naroji was that
free trade between Indian and England was something like a race between a starving,
exhausting invalid and a strong man with a horse to ride on. There was a cry and clamour
for economic justice.

137
The economic policy of the British proved disastrous for the people of India. The Indian
shipping industry was aversely affected by the decision of the Court of Directors of the
English Company to use only British ships and prohibit India ships for the purpose of
trade. Indian paper industry was adversely affected by the British policy to purchase only
British-made paper for use in India. The industry dealing with the damascening and
inlaying of arms, weapons and shields which were very common in Kutch and Sind,
suffered by removing the necessity for it and the prohibition of the use and possession of
arms by Indians. Iron smelting industries in India also suffered. The village industries in
India collapsed and Indian became an “economic appending of another country.” Most of
the handicraftsmen lost there means of livelihood and were reduced to the level of
starvation.
Referring to the process of exploitation of India, Dr. Pattabhi Sitaramayya wrote that the
Indian cloth that was exported in shiploads by the English East India Company and
brought plenty of money to village spinner and weaver, printer and dyer, Dhobi and
trader, began to disappear with the import of Lankashire cloth, the value of which was
only 3 lakhs in 1803 but shot up to 22 lakhs in 1829 and 72 crores in 1929. The two
million weavers of Indian numbering a crore with their family member began to starve
and with them 20 million spinner who fed the 2 million looms. The result was that four
crores of people lost their occupation. The same was the condition of other craftsmen.
Industrial development in India was low and stunted and did not represent at all an
industrial revolution or even the initiation of one. Even the limited development was not
independent but was under the control of foreign capital. The structure of industry was
such as to make its further development on Britain. There was almost a complete absence
of heavy capital goods and chemical industries without which rapid and autonomous
industrial development could not take place. Machine tools, engineering and
metallurgical industries were virtually non-existent. India was entirely dependent on
England for technology. No Technological research was carried on in the country.
H.B. Lamb writes about the economic development of India: “While the Government of
India played an active, dynamic role in bringing about the revolution in transport and
communications, it played a completely passive role in relation to the development of
modern industry in India. India’s rulers viewed with distress the prospect of India’s
becoming an industrial nation”. Again, “It is partly this fact—that a wide variety of
miscellaneous institutions were planted somewhat helterskelter without reference either
to the needs of economic development or the peculiarities of the Indian scene—which
accounts for the impression one receives in studying India of a lack of organic
relationship between the whole and the part. India had the outer forms of many British
institutions but not the inner core, the shadow but not the substance”. “British industry
was still pressing as best as it could right up to the end of British rule of prevent Indian
industrial development in order to retain markets for British enterprise.” Regarding the

138
causes of the slow growth of industries in India, Wilfred Malenbaum wrote: “They lie
partly in problems of management and control and in finance; mostly however, they are
rooted in the fact that the India was the colony of the important industrial and trading
nation.”
The laissez faire and free trade policies of the Government of India stood in the way of
industrialization of India. The policy of laissez faire was foisted upon India although it
was against her interest. The English did not do in India what they had done in their own
country. It was by following a policy of protection that England was able to build up a
large textile industry although she had no raw materials for the industry and the finished
products had to be sold in distant markets entailing considerable transport charges. If the
Englishmen honestly wanted the industrialization of India, they would have given
protection to her infant industries at the beginning in order to allow them to stand on their
own feet but that was not done. The new industries in India could not stand in
competition against British manufactured goods which were freely imported into India.
India underwent a commercial transformation and not an industrial revolution. The trend
was not towards an Indian industrial capitals economy but towards a dependent and
underdeveloped colonial economy. The distribution of industry was extremely lop-sided
and concentrated in a few regions and cities of the country. Even irrigation and electrical
power facilities were very unevenly distributed.
The British Government controlled trade and industry purely with a view to foster British
interest. The growth of foreign trade did not contribute to the welfare of the Indian people
because the balance of trade was merely to pay off the Home charges etc. The growth of
foreign trade was neither natural nor normal. The country was flooded with manufactured
goods from Britain and forced to produce any export the raw materials which Britain and
other foreign countries needed.
As a result of the British rule, India was transformed into a colony. It was a major market
for British manufactures, a big source of raw materials and foods-stuffs and an important
field for the investment of the British capitalists. Its agriculture was highly taxed for the
benefit or imperial interests. The bulk of the transport system, modern mines and
industries, foreign trade, coastal international shipping and banks and insurance
companies were all under foreign control. India provided employment to thousands of
Englishmen and nearly one-third of its revenue was spent in paying their salaries. The
Indian army acted as the chief instrument for maintaining the far-flung Empire and
protecting and promoting British imperial interests in various parts of the world. Indian
economic and social development was completely subordinated to British economy and
social development. During the very years when Britain was developing into the leading
developed capitalist country of the world, India was becoming a backward colonial
country. Dr. Tara Chand writes, “Imperialist Britain treated dependent India as a satellite

139
whose main function was to sweat and labour for the master to subserve its economy and
to enhance of death by starvation went unnoticed.
Era of Famines
It is true that there used to be famines in India even before the establishment of the
British rule in this country but their frequency increased during the British regime. While
previously there were on the average only three famines in a century of one famine in 33
years, now there was one famine in every three years and each famine affected vast
regions of British India. While the people were suffering from famines, the Government
of India refused to stop the export of food-grains from India to England. There was a
terrible loss of life as a result of famines. During the famine of 1860, as many as 5 lakhs
of people died. The number of deaths in the famine of 1866 was 13 lakhs. The famine of
1868-69 killed practically one-third of the whole of the population of Marwar and
Bikaner and one-fourth of Ajmer and about 8¼ lakhs of people in areas between the
Aravali range and the Chambal. There were 5 lakhs of deaths in Punjab and two and a
half lakhs in the central Provinces. In the Bombay famine of 1876-77, as many as one
lakh of people died and 50 thousands out of them died in relief camps. British rule gave
security from death by violence but chances of death by starvation went unnoticed.
De-industrialisation
With the spread of British rule in India, there was the disappearance of a large number of
Indian rulers, chiefs, nobles, their countries and their armies which were the main
customers of urban handicrafts. The Indian states and their armies were the chief
purchasers of military weapons. The British army in India purchased all its military stores
from Great Britain and that hitthe Indian economy.
The British conquest led to de-industrialisation of the country and to an increased
dependence of the people on agricultural and a decreased percentage of population
earning their livelihood through industry. According to the Census Reports between 1901
and 1941, the percentage of population dependent on agricultural increased from 63.7 to
70 per cent. This overwhelming dependence on agriculture was an important cause of the
growing poverty of the people under British Rule. As early as 1880, the Indian Famine
Commission had observed, “At the root of much of the poverty of the people of India and
of the risks to which they are exposed in seasons of scarcity, lies the unfortunate
circumstance that agriculture forms almost the sole occupation of the massof the
population and that no remedy for present evils can be complete which does not include
the introduction of the diversity of occupation through which the surplus population may
be drawn from agricultural pursuits and let to find the means of subsistence in
manufactures of some such employments”.
The Indian peasant did not get any return from the heavy taxation. The Government spent
hardly any significant amount on agriculture. Expenditure on rural help, sanitation, water-

140
supply or education was nominal. As a matter of fact, the Government spent almost its
entire income on the administration, army and police, or in serving the interests of British
trade and industry.
Growing influence of the money-lender
During the British rule, the money-lender began to occupy a dominating position in the
rural economy. More and more land began to pass under his control. By the end of the
19th century, the money-lenders had become a major cause of the rural poverty and a
major appropriators of the economic surplus extracted from the peasantry. Even in pre-
British days in India, lending in cash or grain was common, but the money-lender played
a subordinate role. He could not take possession of land. The pressure of the village
community kept him within certain limits. There was no judicial or police machinery of
the state which could enable him to acquire the prosperity of a debtor. As a matter of fact,
social pressure of the village prevented such an eventuality. Moreover, there was no
shortage of land which was valueless without the cultivators. The result was that the
amount of loans that could be offered was often limited by the value of his standing
crops. British rule created favourable economic and political opportunities for the money-
lender to operate and grow in the country side. The high land revenue demand and
rigidity of its collection drove the peasant to borrow at high rates of interest from the
money-lender. Increased commercialisation of agriculture also increased his dependence
on the money-lender. To grow cash crops, capital was needed. To buy food grains during
the period when the cash crops were being grown, cash was needed. The cultivator
needed cash both for implements and consumption and he had to borrow money from
money-lender. As rural money-lender was also often the rural merchant to whom the crop
was sold, the cultivator found himself in a poor bargaining position and had to sell his
product at below market prices. Growing poverty or his incapacity to make both ends
meet forced the peasant to go to money-lender. There were years of scarcity or famine
and the peasant had to borrow money from the money-lender to save himself and his
cattle from starvation. Once in debt, the peasant found it difficult to get out of it. High
rates of interest, cunning deceit of the money-lender to realise his debts. Gradually, the
cultivators both in the zamindari and ryotwari areas sank deeper and deeper into debt. By
1947, nearly 70 percent of peasants were in debt. More and more land passed into the
hands of money-lenders, merchants, government servants, lawyers rich peasants and
landlords. The new owners often kept the old cultivator on the transferred land but the
occupancy rights and themselves became sub-tenants. The actual cultivators-owner and
the occupancy-ryot increasingly sank to the status of a tenant-at-will, share-cropper or
agricultural labourer. The peasantry was crushed under the tipple burden of Government,
the Zamindar and the money-lender. Surendra J. Patel, an Indian economist, has calculate
that in 1950-51 rent and interest demand on Indian agricultural amounted to Rs.1,400
cores which was roughly equal to one-third of the total agricultural produce for the year.

141
Most of the people of India were exploited by the princes, zamindars, landlords, money-
lenders, merchants and the foreign Government and they lived perpetually on the verge of
starvation. The second-half of the 19th century became an era of amines. During those
years, 24 famines occurred in which over 28 million people died. The famine of 1943 in
Bengal carried away nearly 3 million people. Millions also died in epidemics which the
ill-nourished bodies could not resist. The insanitary conditions added to the mischief. The
frequency of the famines indicated the extent to which poverty had taken root in India.
Charles Elliot, a member of the Governor-General’s Council observed, “I do not hesitate
to say that half the agricultural population do not know from one year’s end to another
what is to have a full meal.” For the majority of the people, conditions deteriorated in the
20th century. When the British rule ended in 1947, India was economically the least
developed and the most backward country of the world. She had the lowest per capital
income in the world.
However, it may be conceded that the introduction of banking, business exchange,
insurance and other economic organisations in the country was a contribution of the
British rule in India. It is true that these institutions were introduced in the country by the
British to exploit the economic resources of the country, but they acquainted the Indians
with the advanced techniques of the West. Another important contribution of British rule
in India was the introduction of railways and better means of communication. Whatever
the reasons, the British also encouraged industrial production in the country after the
outbreak of the War in 1914. Although industrialisation was on a very limited scale, it
gave a rude shock to the system of division of labour on the basis of caste and helped the
consolidation of the country.
Communal Difference Fomented
The policy of divide at impera was also applied to the major communities of the country.
During the crucial days of 1857 Hindus and Muslim had displayed a wonderful unity
which even the utmost efforts of the British had failed to destroy. Therefore, the British
realised that the continuance of their rule depended on the breach of this unity. With this
end in view, discrimination of a sinister type was introduced between the communities.
Muslims were penalised much more harshly and severely than the Hindus. “To teach
these rascally Mussalmans a lesson”, the Nawabs of Jhajjar, Ballabgarh, Farrukhnagar
and twenty-four other Shahzadas were hanged. Muslim property was either confiscated or
destroyed. While Muslims were made to pay 35 per cent of their immovable property as
punitive fine, Hindus were left off with only 10 per cent. After Delhi was reconquered by
the British, the Hindus were allowed to return to the Indian metropolis within a few
months, but the Muslims could not come back till 1859. As a result of this policy, the
Muslims suffered heavily. After some years when the Hindus developed national
consciousness and began to agitate for reforms, the attitude of the British towards the
Muslims underwent a change a set pattern, viz., of playing one community against the

142
other. Herein lay the origin of the acute communal problem which later bedevilled the
relations of the two major communities inhabiting this country. That paved the way for
the partition of India.
New Political Trends
The British Government learnt another lesson. One of the causes of the revolt of 1857
greatly emphasised by Sir Syad Ahmed Khan, had been the lack of contract between the
rulers and the ruled. It was realised that had the rulers known anything about the effects
their policies produced on the minds of the ruled, remedial measures could have been
taken in time, and thus what happened in 1857-58 could be prevented. Therefore, as a
safeguard for the future, a provision was included in the Indian Canals Act of 1861 for
the nomination of some Indians in the various legislative bodies set up under that Act.
The idea, however was not to train Indians in the Parliamentary methods of government,
but only to associate a few people with the administration of the country in the interest of
the British Empire. Even with this limited objective, the step would have proved a real
boon, if while nominating members to the various legislative bodies preference had not
been given to princes and their Dewans or other hangers-on like big zamindars,
sycophants, etc.
But if the purpose of the British Government in providing for the nomination of Indians
in the various legislatures was to minimise the gulf between the rulers and the ruled. It
was simply not achieved. The gulf instead of narrowing down grew wider and wider.
Both Indian and Europeans could not forget the events of 1857, and the manifold deeds of
atrocity committed during the upheaval continued to stand in the way of any genuine
understanding between the two races. Englishmen who came to India after 1857 regarded
Indians contemptuously and would never agree to mix with them or even to live near
them. This social segregation was carried to the ridiculous extreme of having separate
places of residence for the Englishmen quite far away from the areas where the Indians
lived. There was yet another attempt to build up an artificial halo around the Englishmen
as if they belonged to a superior race of mankind. Little wonder, therefore, the racial
discord which had manifested itself so violently in the days of the “Great Rebellion”
developed into a mighty evil force for the future. Frequent outbursts of racial antagonism
which followed the Vernacular Press Act (1878) and the Ilbert Bill (1883) between the
Indians and the Europeans which was clearly visible in the pre-Mutiny era. This racial
bitterness had at least one redeeming quality. It engendered amongst Indians a greater
national awareness. Its culmination was the foundation of the Indian National Congress,
an organization which spearheaded the demand for Swaraj.
In another way also, our freedom movement was indebted to the revolt of 1857-58. The
earlier national leaders of India like Tilak, Lala Lajpat Rai, B.C.Pal, V.D.Savarkar, Lala
Haradyal and others looked back into the past for inspiration and found in this great
upsurge of 1857-58 the first national war of independence which their countrymen had

143
waged against the foreign domination of Great Britain. Savarkar in h is book “India’s
War of Independence” – a book was prescribed by the Indian Government— put forward
the thesis that the rebels had chalked out an elaborate and well-thought out plan to oust
the foreigners from this sacred soil of ours. This interpretation of the “Great Rebellion”
readily caught the imagination of the Indian intelligentsia and served as an effective goal
to whip up national sentiment. Almost overnight, as it were, the leaders of this revolt
were canonised as great national heroes whose brave deeds and noble aspirations were a
perennial source of national inspiration to the later nationalists of our country. Perhaps,
the later day “terrorists” of Bengal, Maharashtra and the Punjab had derived many of
their ideas regarding the use of “the bomb and pistol” against the British officers and their
toadies from the leaders of this Great Upsurge. These ‘terrorists’ were emboldened in
their spirits by a sense of moral obligation to overthrow the British from the soil of India
and to achieve what the rebels of 1857-58 had failed to accomplish.
Another significant impact of this uprising can be clearly seen in the field of religion. The
inaptitude displayed by Indian leadership during these critical days of the rebellion
compelled many Indians to discover the reasons why the Indian attempt to oust the
British rule had proved infructuous. This resulted in the emergence of two divergent
religious trends in India. One of these was religious nationalism which sought to glorify
the past. The Arya Samaj movement amongst the Hindus with its slogan” Back to the
Vedas” and the Wahabis amongst the Muslims, provided a new rallying ground for some
type of religious militancy. The other trend can be seen in the Brahmo Samaj which
aimed at a synthesis of all religions. It stimulated interest in comparative study of
religions.
There was also some genuine anxiety after 1858 to root out some of the social ills which,
because of long usage, had acquired some type of religions sanctity. Hence onwards
religious reforms movements acquired many new dimensions and a new momentum. And
the leadership for reform now came from the Indians themselves.
It is clear from the above account that the rebellion of 1857-58 has left a permanent mark
on the political, economic, social and cultural life of the country. The administrative
policy of the British Government underwent a marked change. It was no longer its aim to
purge the Indian society of its many traditional evil practices. On the contrary, it was not
directed solely towards one main objective, viz., how best the continuance of the British
rule in India could be ensured. The chief aims of the British Government were to preserve
law and order and collect taxes. The uplift of the people was no longer deemed an
obligation of the British.
This great upsurge also profoundly affected the attitude of the Indians. The terrible
revenge taken by the British continued to hunt our countrymen for many years. It made
some sullen; a few became pessimistic; others turned introspective; there were still others
who lost faith in themselves. Luckily, poise and sanity seemed to have returned by the

144
close of the nineteenth century. The crest-fallen spirits rallied. The Indians acquired a
new sense of self-confidence and self-respect. The struggle for independence was soon
set on a new course. The failure of the leadership to fully exploit and guide the pervasive
anti-British sentiment served as an eye-opener for the future generations. No doubt, the
uprising proved an effective spur to sustain and strengthen our will and determination to
win swaraj!

145
 Unit-V
Socio-Religious Reforms and Growth of Education and Press

SOCIO-RELIGIOUS REFORMS
The eighteenth century India witnessed the tendencies of decay, dissolution and
degeneration. In Europe, it was an age of enlightenment whereas, I India it was a period
of stagnation. Religion, in India, had always exercised great influence on the people in
their social ways and habits. The condition of society depended on the conditions of its
religions. In the eighteenth century, “idolatory and fetishism had been extended to
extremes.” The religion of the masses was confined to sacrificial rites, witchcraft and
sorcery, various pujas, festivals and ceremonies. There was no escape from superstition.
All aspects of social life began to be pervaded by religious superstitions. This resulted in
the increasing dominance of priestly class, the bulk of which seldom understood the
scriptures and hardly cared for the spiritual values. Social conditions, such as infanticide,
child marriage, polygamy, the burning of widows (Sati) and other social evils, were all
interpreted as valid and based on holy scrip trues. Thus, the eighteenth century “was age
of intolerant institutions and irrational customs.”
The early British administrators being dominated by conservative approach were hardly
interested in bringing about any social change in India. They were anxious to erect an
administrative system which would give stability to the country. At the same time they
firmly believed that the inherent strength of the Indian institutions could provide such a
stability. Besides this, they were acutely conscious of the danger of provoking a violent
reaction by unwise interference or hasty innovations.” This policy, however, failed and
there was a reaction in favour of reform. But, for some time the “Liberal Tory” approach
dominated. The leaders of this School were inclined to favour the introduction of Western
reforms and innovations, but sought a cautious blanding of the old and the new. This
approach was dismissed by the “Radicals” who advocated bold innovations. They
honestly believed that “the static Indian civilization must give way to the more verile
western culture and there could be no real compromise between the two. The Hindu
society, however, was no longer static or inert. In the early decades of the nineteenth
century there were perceptible movements within the society against its own customs and
practices. This encouraged the government too, to change its policies. Thus, the British
initiated social legislation when the Indian reformers had already created and opinion in
their favour.
PART A—SOCIAL LEGISLATION IN THE NINETEENTH CENTURY
It was Lord Wellesley who initiated the policy of social reform at the beginning of the
nineteenth century.

146
The custom of Sati was highly revolting to the conscience of the British administrators.
The collectors of various districts had been writing to the Government drawing its
attention to this evil custom ‘a practice at which human nature shudders, but no positive
steps were taken to eradicate this evil till Lord William Bentinck’s appearance on the
scene. By this time, however, Indian reformers particularly Raja Ram Mohan Roy had
created opinion against the custom of Sati. He published brochures, wrote articles in his
journal Sambad Kaumudi and ‘made passionate appeals to the Government to abolish the
rite’. Grounds were thus ready for the abolition of Sati. So, on 4 December, 1829, the
Government declared the custom of Sati, ‘illegal and punishable by the criminal courts’.
Bentinck was also instrumental in suppressing the organized bands of “thugs”. The thugs
carried our armed robberies and murders in the name of religion. Thugee had existed for
long. It became a menace to the society when government authority in central India
collapsed. The thugs were actively helped by certain chiefs; land-holders and merchants.
Thugee posed a problem to law and order. Sir William Sleeman and a number of able
officers were deputed by Bentinck to crush the Thugee. A series of regulations were
enacted to regulate these proceedings. The Thugee was completely suppressed during the
years 1831-37.
The suppression of Female Infanticide was another social measure for which Bentinck
rightly deserves credit. The custom was prevailing among certain sections of the Hindus
of Bengal. People used to throw female children into the sea at the mouth of Ganga in
fulfillment to certain religious vows. Another form of female infanticide was popular in
central and western India where female children were poisoned. Regulations passed in
1795 and 1802 prohibiting both these forms of infanticide, were not rigidly enforced. It
was Bentinck who enforced the regulations firmly and the practice died out gradually.
The process of social reform continued even after Bentinck. Slavery was abolished by the
Act V of 1843. The practice was deep-rooted and widespread. It was abolished by Lord
Ellenborough (1842-44) by simply refusing to recognize slavery as the legal institution.
The practice of human sacrifice in the hills of Orissa, Madras and the Central Provinces
was discovered by the British authorities in 1830. It was found that the Khonds had been
in the habit of ‘performing annual sacrifices of human victims, the victims being usually
purchased or stolen in the plains below, and sold to the Khonds, by persons who made a
trade of such dealings. From 1848, the matter received the serious attention of Lord
Dalhousie. It had been decided earlier in 1845, to rescue the mariahs or the victims kept
for sacrifice. During the course of operations, a large number of mariah, men, women and
children, were rescued by a young officer named Campbell. By 1853, the total number of
victims rescued was 1260. Of these two hundred children were sent to missionary schools
for education By 1854, the mariah practice was almost at an end. British officer deserve
credit ‘for having persuaded the tribal people to give up a primitive custom within so
short of time.’

147
Lord Dalhousie’s tenure in office saw some far-reaching social reforms. Dalhousie, was a
confirmed westernizer, who believed that the promotion of civilization meant the
promotion of Western reforms. The question of widow-remarriage rose into prominence
as a result of the abolition and suppression of Sati. What was to be the lot of the
unfortunate. Hindu widows if they were not allowed to perish at the funeral pyres of their
husbands. Were they expected for ever to remain suppressed, miserable and neglected, or
some reasonable hopes could be hold out to them for a happy contented and peaceful life.
It was Ishwar Chandra Vidya Sagar, who in the middle of the nineteenth century began a
campaign for Widow-remarriage. The Hindu Sastras, in his opinion did not prohibit
widow-remarriage. He came forward to start a constitutional demand for it. As a result of
his most sincere and untiring efforts, the government, despite opposition by the orthodox
section of the society, legalized widow-marriage in 1856, giving at the same time the
status of legitimacy to the children of married widows. Besides legalizing widow-
remarriage, Dalhousie also regularized the attempt of Bentinck to regulate the Hindu law
of succession by his Religious Disabilities Act, 1856.
(i) Social Legislation in the Twentieth Century
It was now realized by the Government that the various measures adopted to eradicate the
prevailing social evils had contributed greatly to the outbreak of the Great Upsurge of
1857. The government was, therefore, not very keen to continue with their social reform
policy. Consequently, in the latter half of the nineteenth century, ‘policies regarding
social change mainly resulted from Indian opinion rather than from British interest’. The
progress of western education and the growth of national consciousness served to awaken
the Indian people from the slumber of many centuries. The Press was also instrumental in
giving prominence to many social issues. Indians, carried on this discussion, in the newly
created legislatures, which thus became forums for the discussions of popular needs.
Several social legislations were brought about. Many Acts were passed by the provincial
or state legislatures to meet the needs of their respective areas. Some laws, coming from
the central legislature, covered the whole country. We shall mention here some of the
significant social laws which affected the whole of India.
Though the need for remedying the social evil of child marriage had long been felt,
nothing had so far been done in this direction. The child-marriage Restrain Act of 1929,
came into force on 1st April, 1930. The Act provided that any person performing,
conducting or directing any child marriage was punishable with imprisonment and fine.
The Hindu Women’s Right to Property Act XVIII of 1937, aimed to restore to women, in
certain cases, an economic status.
With the independence of India, a great social evil of many centuries was taken up for
immediate eradication. Article 17 of the constitution of India declared that
‘untouchability’ is abolished and its practice in any form is forbidden. The Caste
Disabilities Removal Act XXI, 1950, Provide that no forfeiture of property or right of

148
inheritance shall follow upon the deprivation of caste and no court shall enforce any
custom prescribing such forfeiture.1
PART B - SOCIO-RELIGIOUS REFORM MOVEMENTS
The British conquest of India led to the destruction of Indian polity, transformation of
Indian economy and attacks of Indian society and culture. There was a real danger of
India being converted into a cultural province of the west.
India was not slow to react to this challenge thrown by the West. The earliest impact of
this challenge is to be seen in the spirit of self criticism exhibited in the elite class of the
Hindus in the first few decades of the nineteenth century. But this protest against the west
gradually acquired more and more momentum, and the educated Indians started
demanding a reform in religion and society. A number of schools of thought arose among
both Hindus and Muslims. The growth of various reform movements roistered a rational
outlook. Even the conservatives no long accepted things uncritically. They began to
justify their religious beliefs and social practices by reason. Throughout the nineteenth
century there followed phase after phase of various reform movements in India to
renovate the society and rationalize religious thought. The first in the series was the
movement initiated by Raja Ram Mohan Roy (1774-1833) the Brahmo Samaj.
Ram Mohan was precocious as a child. He was well-up in Sanskrit and Persian languages
at the early age of eight, and differed with his father on the question of idol worship. His
father, a rich and orthodox Brahmin, could hardly be expected to countenance the
rebellious attitude of his son, and expelled him from home. Ram Mohan decided to
acquire knowledge and social status before revolting publicly against idolatry. He went to
Patna where he mastered in Persian, Koran and the Muslim law. Next he went to Benaras
for higher studies in Sanskrit and the Hindu Shastras and scriptures. He also learnt
English and joined service of the East India company as Diwan (Revenue Officer). He
received promotions in the service. In 1814 Ram Mohan Roy gave up his post and settled
in Calcutta early next year. He at once collected his friends, mostly Middle class liberals
and social aristocrats, to form the Atmiya Sabha (Friends’ Association)‘to spread his
religious conviction of the supremacy of monotheism.’Among the prominent persons
who attended the weekly meetings of the Sabha were Dwarkanath Tagor (father of
Davendranath and grandfather of the poet Rabindranath), Prasanna Kumar Tagore and
Ram Chandra Vidyavagish.
Ram Mohan started a crusade against the prevalent religious and social vices and
injustices. For this he used four methods. (a) 4establishment of religious associations (b)
publication of books and tracts (c) holding discussions and debates and (d) removing

1
Social, Cultural, and Economic History of Indian, by P.N. Chopra, B.N. Puri, M.N. Das, pp. 136—137

149
ignorance by setting up educational institutions. Ram Mohan preached monotheism,
omnipresence of God and the futility of observing numerous, meaningless religious
rituals.
Ram Mohan raised his powerful voice against the prevailing religious and social
maladies. He was determined to eradicate the cruel custom of Sati. Ram Mohan and his
followers asserted that most of the Sati cases were not voluntary but forced. They argued
that “the Sati system was designed more to secure the temporal happiness of the surviving
relatives than the spiritual welfare of the deceased and his wife.”
Ram Mohan wrote a series of tracts in English during 1818-19, to show that no where in
the Hindu Shastras the practice of Sati had been enjoyed as a compulsory measure. He
pointed out the fact that force was employed in many cases of Sati which was in flagrant
violation of the injunction of the Hindus Shastras.”
The Raja started a vigorous Press campaign through his famous journal Sambad
Kaumudi, started in 1819. Samachar Darpan and Bangadut supported him while the
Samachar Chandrika, the organ of the orthodox Hindu society conducted a bitter
campaign against the abolition of Sati. The movement against Sati gained momentum and
received support from the Government of Lord Hastings. Ram Mohan, ‘although an
exponent of individualism advocated state legislation for social and moral reforms;
thereby he added, it may be said, the notions of social utility and human welfare to the
concept of natural right.”2
Ram Mohan was against the necessity of a child-widow passing the rest of her life in
celibacy. He also condemned polygamy. He pleaded for a change in the Hindu law of
inheritance so as to improve the lot of the Hindu Widows.
Ram Mohan never intended to establish a new religion. He only wanted to re-establish
Hinduism in its pristine form and purity. He accepted the monotheism of the Upanishads.
For him God was shapeless, invisible, omnipresent and omnipotent. He also viewed God
as the guiding spirit of the universe and omniscient. Ram Mohan, for the worship of
Brahma founded the Brahmo Sabha on August 20, 1828 and renamed it Brahmo Samaj
about a year later. The Samaj stood for the ‘worship and adoration of the Eternal.
Unsearchable and immutable. It admitted ‘no graven image, statute or sculpture, carving
painting, picture, portrait or the likeness of anything’. It further stood for the ‘promotion
of charity, morality, piety, benevolence, virtue and the strengthening of the bonds of
union between men of all religious persuasions and creeds. The worship was preformed
through prayers and meditation and readings from Upanishads.
The establishment of the Brahmo Samaj made the orthodox Hindus more hostile to Ram
Mohan. They organize the Dharma Sabha under Raja Radha Kant Deb, with the object of
defending Hinduism ‘from the impending danger of non-idolatrous monotheistic

2
Social History of Modern India: Narain V.A.; PP. 65

150
religion’. As a result the Brahmo Samaj could not make much progress in preaching its
doctrines and enrolled a large number of adherents.
Ram Mohan fought like a patriot and an earnest social worker against all the unsocial and
immoral tendencies of the nineteenth century. ‘He was no blind imitator of the West; he
stood for all that was best in the Western civilization. His agitation was a movement for
the complete emancipation of mankind. He wanted to free men of India from all religious
and social prejudices. His noble patriotism was crowned with still nobler
cosmopolitanism. He belongs, as Rabindranath has justly said, ‘to the lineage of India’s a
great seers who, age after age have appeared in the arena of its history with the message
of externalism’.
Later Developments. The mission of Ram Mohan was taken up by other daring souls.
The movement from the very beginning was confined to the intellectuals and
educationally enlightened minds who believed in reforms. But there was a changed
outlook and the movement was destined to grow.
In 1843, Devendranath Tagore took over the leadership of Brahmo Samaj. With a view to
discover and preach truth, he established the Tathvabodhini Sabha ‘which played a
prominent role in the moral awakening of Bengal. The members of the Sabha turned their
energy towards searching for the lost and forgotten values of the culture of the country.
Davendranath organized a group of preachers to popularize the Brahmo doctrines in the
countryside of Bengal. Branches of Samaj were established in various towns. Inside
Hinduism, Devendranatha’s was a reformist movement, outside his was the ruthless
opposition to the Christian missionaries for their criticism of Hinduism and attempt at
conversion.
Brahmos till then believed in the infallibility of the Vedas. But before long, the more
progressive minds among them began to doubt and question the theory of the vedac
infallibility. The younger element of the Brahmos began to advocate more radical social
changes.
When Brahmo Samaj was experiencing this change, Keshab Chandra Sen joined the
Samaj in 1858. Keshab’s personal dynamism, vigour, capacity and above all his
eloquence proved great assets to Brahmoism. He established a great hold on the rising
generation.3
From the very beginning the Brahmo movement was confined to Bengal. Keshab aimed
at making it an all Indian concern. He undertook a missionary campaign to Madras and
Bombay. Where ever he went, he received an enthusiastic reception. But again a schism
confronted the Brahmo Samaj. His line of thought appeared too radical to the
conservatives. Keshab and his followers advocated even inter caste marriage. To

3
Social, Cultural & Economic History of India, Vol. III; P.N. Chopra, B.N. Puri and M.N. Das; PP. 105.

151
Devendranath his policies appeared too radical. Soon they drifted apart. The schism
between the conservatives and the radicals came about in 1866, when Keshab and the
follwers left the parent body. They formed the Brahmo Samaj or India Devendranath’s
Samaj now came to be known as the Adi Brahmo Samaj.
The new organization of Keshabchandra began to grow with more pronounced zeal. It
was no longer content remaining merely a reformists sect. It now aimed at assuming a
Universal character on its religious platform. As regards social reforms it rejected the
caste system in any and every form. With a view to stir up religious emotion in men
Keshab introduced devotional elements in Brahmo prayer. The Samkirtan or the
devotional singing, became a feature of the new Brahmoism. Since the movement
appealed to the heart, it gained popularity.
But again the process of transformation started in Brahmo Samaj. The close disciples of
Keshab, began to regard him as an incarnation. This was not liked by his progressive
followers. Keshab’s popularity waned on this account. Moreover, ‘Brahmoism, which
stood for religious liberalism, found in Keshab’s person elements of authoritarianism as
he interpreted his own words as divine will.”4 Soon, the inevitable rift came. The
marriage of Keshabs’ eldest daughter precipitated the issue. Both the bride and the
bridegroom were not yet of a marriageable age. Moreover the bridegroom, the Maharaja
of Cooch-Behar belonged to an orthodox family. This shocked the conscience of the
Brahmos. Many withdrew from Keshab’s Samaj and formed a new organization named
Sadharan Brahmo Samaj. After the schism of 1878 the Brahmo movement ‘lost much of
its earlier novelty and purpose’. In its doctrinal aspect, Brahmoism maintained its
universal approach and upheld its faith in the synthesis of all faiths.
Prarthana Samaj. The spread of organize social reform movement outside Bengal, was
largely due to the missionary activities of the Brahmos led by Devendranath and Keshab
Chandra Sen.
When Keshab visited Bombay in 1864, the ground had already been prepared to receive
his message. An educated middle class of the same type as that of Bengal had arisen in
the Presidency. It was absorbing western ideas and receiving English education. It had
felt the need of religious and social reform. As a result of Keshab’s visit, the Prarthana
Samaj was established. But its founders chiefly M.G. Ranade (1842-1901) wanted to
remain outside the pale of Brahmo Samaj and to reform the Hindu society from within.
The members of Prarthana Samaj believed in a single, all powerful, all loving God;
Salvation through worship of God; denial of the idias of Karma and transmigration;
opposition to the authority of priests and idolatry.5 They did not reflect, the Vedas and the
Upanishads, but laid more emphasis on devotion to a personal God through Bhakti. They
wanted to apply the holy truths of religions to the practical duties of life and to show how

4
Ibid, p. 106.
5
Social History of Modern India: Narain V.A., P. 148.

152
‘religion was meant by our prophets as by the prophets of Israel to be practice of civic
virtue—true telling, honesty between citizens, tenderness to the poor, inflexible justice in
high places’. They were more concerned in social reform movement rather than
propagation of a new faith.
Men like Ranade and R.G. Bhandarkar strengthen the Samaj and its activities expanded.
A new paper ‘Subodh Patrika’ was started to spread the teachings of the society and a
night school was opened to impart education to the working class. Pandita Ramabai, a
talented Maratha lady gave much help in founding, the ‘Arya Mahila Samaj’. M.G.
Ranade the chief architect of the Samaj was for forty long years engaged in removing the
evil practices and superstitious notions. Randae’s approach to the problems of religion
and society was rational but he was not a blind follower of western ways. He showed
tremendous organizing capacity and under his guidance the Pararthana Samaj started
night schools for low caste workers in Bombay. Gradually it set up free reading rooms, an
association to educate girls, an orphanage at pandharpur and a number of elementary
schools in Bombay. Towards the close of the century it established the ‘Depressed
Classes Mission’ and the ‘Bombay Presidency Social Reform Association’. Ranade’s
close associates in these activities were Agarkar, Bhandarkar, Gokhale, Telang and
Chandravarkar. They were helped by Tilak to start the ‘Deccan Education Society’ in
1884 and the Fergusson College at Poona, with far-reaching results in Indian history and
culture.
Revivalist Movements— In the latter half of the nineteenth century, revivalism began to
replace in popularity the creed of Brahmo Samaj and the Prarthana Samaj. A new note of
assertive Hinduism began to sound above the voice of rationalism. The influence of
radicals in religious thought and urgency of social reform began to recede, and
conservative tendencies were accentuated.
The feeling of pride in the past was initially aroused by religious movements. The result
was a revulsion of feeling against western culture and an eagerness to repudiate western
superiority.
Rama Krishna— Vivekananda— It is characteristic of Hinduism that at appropriate
moments it develops spontaneous inner movements aimed at spiritual regeneration. A
similar phenomenon was represented in Sri Ram Krishna in the nineteenth century. The
movement represented by him was the result of an inner resurgence of the Hindu spirit to
recover and reassert itself.
Sri Ram Krishna was born in 1836 in the Hoogly district of Bengal. He lived a life of
extraordinary mystic experiences. Even as a boy he showed an unusual zeal for
devotional practices, and was very often found to be lost in ecstasy. Passing through
various spiritual disciplines he finally attained the supreme realization. Sri Krishna
believed devotion to be the supreme goal of the human soul. God, according to him, was
both with form and without form. His views ‘introduced a synthesizing and assimilating

153
force into Hinduism’. He broke down the barriers which separated the various Hindu
cults and took them together towards an inward, search for Reality. Hinduism ‘thus
received from his teaching a new vigour, and a spirit of unity.6 Ram Krishna’s disciples
believed that it was possible to reform the Hindu religion from within and there was no
need to leave the Hindu fold for that.
Sri Ram Krishna aimed at universal synthesis of all religions. The different religions of
the world could be regarded as variable rivers merging in the ultimate sea. To him the
inner spirit of Islam and Christianity was the same as that of Hinduism. In the nineteenth
century India Sri Krishna’s spiritual cosmopolitanism brought to the Indian mind a new
vision of the spiritual unity of mankind.
The mysticism of Ram Krishna and the dynamism of his teachings had a special appeal
for the middle class. The middle class people who had their roots in the villages were
unable to accept a materialistic modern urban way of life. They could not discard social
customs and traditional forms of worship nor at the same time they could ignore the force
of argument of agnostic utilitarian philosophies they learnt from the west. At this time
Ram Krishna’s teachings had a considerable appeal for them. They flocked in large
numbers to hear him. The educated materialistic class people found truth and substance in
his sayings.
Of the many westernised Indians that came to Sri Ram Krishna one was Narendra Nath
Dutt later known as Swami Vivekananda. He had western style education. Troubled by
spiritual unrest he visited many religious teachers. Ultimately he came to Sri Ram
Krishna. Though at first skeptical and assailed with doubts, Vivekananda gradually gave
Ram Krishna complete allegiance. After his master’s death Vivekananda became a
Sanyasi. Vivekananda lectured in America and England for about four years and then
returned to India as a national hero. According to Vivekananda, India in the nineteenth
century had to face two obstacles. One was orthodoxy and the other materialism of the
West. He was of the opinion that one should stand on his own feet and thus assimilate
what he could. Indians would of course learn from every nation and ultimately would
take only that much which would be useful to them.
Though proud to belong to the Hindu race and Hindu civilization; Vivekananda was
conscious of their drawbacks too. He bitterly criticized the defects of the Hindu society.
All social abuses, inequities and superstitions that came to his notice were lashed
relentlessly by him.
Vivekananda condemned to practice of untouchability and cast restrictions. The Hindus,
according to him were neither Vedantists nor Tantriks nor Pauranics, but were actually
‘Do not touchists’. He bitterly criticized untouchability which drove thousands of men
and women to the fold of Christianity and Islam.

6
A Social, Cultural and Economic History of India, Vol. III, P.N. Chopra, B.N. Puri & M.N. Das, P. 109.

154
As regard social reform Vivekananda opposed the blind acceptance of things which in his
opinion would lead to nothing but frustration and bondage. To Vivekananda, India for
about a hundred years had been flooded with social reformers without any practical
consequences. He wanted a ‘root and branch’ reform. He said that he too, wanted reform
but, ‘where we differ is in the methods’. He continued, ‘Their’s is the method of
destruction, mine is that of construction. I do not believe in reform, I believe in growth’.
He therefore, wanted reforms to be made without disturbing the continuity of the
prevailing traditions Reform according to him, they should touch every aspect of life. He
believed that mere legislation or breaking of one or two social customs in some cases,
would not bring about social reform. He opposed the idea or any fresh social of official
imposition in the name of reform.
Vivekananda’s heart was full of sympathy, for the poor, ignorant and the destitute. His
great and pure love for them made him declare, May I be born again and again and suffer
a thousand miseries, may I worship the only God that exists, the only God I believe in,
the sum total of souls, and above all my God, the wicked, my God the miserable, my God
the poor of all the races, of all species, is the special object of my worship.”7
A spirited missionary, Vivekananda organized the disciples of Ram Krishna into an order
and founded the ‘Ram Krishna Mission’ in 1897. The mission was given three-fold
activities, namely, to spread the meaning of Vedantic spiritualisms far and wide, to strive
for a synthesis and harmony among various faiths and cults and to regard the service of
mankind as service to God. In 1899, Vivekananda established the Belur Math near
Calcutta which became the centre of Mission’s activities.
Theosophical Society—Theosophical Society stimulated the spirit of cultural
nationalism among the Indians. The founders of Theosophical Society were Madam
Blavatsky, a Russian and Col. Olcott, an American. It was, However, Annie Beasant, who
played the most important part in propagating theosophy in India.
Annie Beasant came to India in 1893. She felt great fascination for India. She sought to
defend Hinduism against the attacks of Christian missionaries, against the criticism of
English educated social reformers in India who had lost faith in God and religion.
Theosophists popularized the study or oriental classics, especially the Upanishads and the
Bhagvad Gita, in Europe and America. They also strengthened the pride of many Hindus
in their ancient thought and civilization.
Arya Samaj— Arya Samaj was a militant reform movement. Its founder was Swami
Dayananda Saraswati. At the age of twenty-one, disregarding his fathers instructions to
get married, he left his home and became a sanyasi. He wandered from place to place in
search of a guroo and eventually found one, in the stern, old and blind Swami Virjananda.
Dayanbda-set out the true vedic religion of his conception.

7
See, Social History of Modern India, V.A. Narain, P. 167.

155
To Dayananda the Vedas were the fountain head of all knowledge. They contained
religion in truest form. All the other sacred scriptures of Hindus of the later ages
‘appeared untrue of mixed with pretensions’. In the Vedas lay the concept of
monotheism-devotion to one formless God. Dayanada believed that Vedic society was a
natural society-without the social evils of subsequent ages. The Vedas advocate the four-
fold division of the society. Similarly women enjoyed a place of honour, privilege and
freedom in the society. Convinced of the values of the Vedic religion and social
conditions, Dayanada raised the cry, ‘Back to the Vedas’.
Dayananda laid the foundation of Arya Samaj in 1875 at Bombay. The Samaj was
required to lay absolute faith in God and the Vedas. God, as Dayananda described to his
followers, ‘is existent, intelligent and blissful. He is formless, omnipotent, just, merciful,
unborn, endless, unchangeable, beginningless, omnipresent, immanent, unaging,
immortal, Fearless, eternal, holy and maker of all. The Vedas, according to Dayananda
‘are the scriptures of true knowledge. It is the first duty of the Aryas to reads them, teach
them, recite them, and hear them being read’. Its members were required to devote
themselves to the physical, social and spiritual welfare of their fellow man.
In an attempt to reintroduce and encourage the ancient Aryan type of education, the
Samaj, started establishing Gurukuls of educational institutions on the pattern. The most
notable of such gurukulas was the one of Kangri near Hardwar. The Gurukulas laid great
emphasis on character building, and a spirit of service and dedication, on the part of
youth, side by side with studies. Philanthropic activities, too, were as part of the Arya
programme. The samaj established homes for orphans. Widows, destitutes and the
distressed.
Dayananda wanted not only to revive Hinduism, but also the reform it. The Arya Samaj
founded by Him condemned the Brahminical rituals, idol worship and superstitious
practices. It worked to bring to the untouched the status of the Hindus belonging to the
upper class. Besides this, the Samaj threw open the door’s of Hindu society to the non-
Hindus. Shuddhi movement was started by which the non-Hindus could be converted to
Hinduism.
Dayananda’s movement was a great success in the north. But, the extreme reliance on the
Vedas, or the motive to ascribe all knowledge and truth to the vedas, did not make a
lasting impression on the mind of the Hindu intelligentsia in general and, as such, the
religious aspect of the Arya Samaj did not inspire deeper convication. But its socio-
educational schemes, infused newness and vigour into Hindu society.
RELIGIOUS AND REFORM MOVEMENTS AMONG THE MUSLIMS
Among the Muslims too, there were some movements to liberalize the medieval rigidity
in religious outlook. Before a reference is made to them, it is necessary to recollect the
formidable politico-religious ferment which passed under the name of Wahabi Movement.

156
To Muslims it was as Jihad or Holy war, its objective being to convert the Dar-ul-Harb
(Land of infidels) into Dar-ul-Islam, (land of Islam). The movement was the work of
Syed Ahmed of Rae Bareli in present day Uttar Pradesh. It was cult of Jihad against those
who displaced Muslims from power and had thereby disgraced them. Syed Ahmed
became a sworn enemy of the British. His plan was to conduct a campaign from the lands
of the frontier tribes on the north-west. But he had to face the Sikh power on the north-
west. In a battle with Sikhs Syed Ahmed was killed with many of his followers. Yet the
Wahabi influence remained in many places of India for many years to come. Finally, the
movement was destroyed by tact and diplomacy.
The real reform movement among the Muslims in the nineteenth century was the
Ahmadiya Movement which began in 1889. Its founder was Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. The
aim was to liberalize the tenets of religion in the context of modern enlightenment.
Ghulam Ahmad became a believer in the new spirit of the time and the rationalism as
represented by the modern west. The liberal trends in India which aimed at emancipating
the minds of men also had their influence on him. He was opposed to the medieval
concept of crusades (Jihad), ‘which destroyed the basic philosophy of true religions,
namely human brotherhood’. On the social issues, the movement stood for western
system of education.
Another Muslim movement of the nineteenth century was Aligarh movement of Sir
Saiyad Ahmad Khan. It stood for social reform among the Indian Muslims. It emphasized
the utility of western education for the material prosperity of the Muslims. The
‘Mohammedan Anglo-Oriental college’ established at Aligarh became a University. But
before long ‘the leaders of the Aligarh movement began to think more of politics than of
socio-cultural reforms’.
REFORM MOVEMENT AMONTH THE SKIHS
Sikhism in the nineteenth century was not old enough to need any radical change. But
there were two undesirable tendencies which needed a timely corrective. First, the Sikh
aristocracy was abandoning the religious austerity of the earlier days. Secondly, as a
consequence of the Hindu influence silently permeating the Sikh society, there was an
urge among the latter for the revival of traditional festivities and ceremonies. Some
reformers thought of restoring the puritan simplicity of the creed.
Dayal Das, the pioneer of the Sikh reform movement, began to preach against the practice
of Hindu ceremonies. He boldly denounced the idol worship. His disciples were called
the Nirankaris. The movement became powerful in the Punjab and the North-West
Frontier Province. Dayal Das enjoyed the status of a guru in his life time, and his
successors, too, were obeyed as gurus. The movement retained its vigour till the middle
of the present century.

157
Namdhari Movement was the next reform movement among the Sikhs. Its leader Ram
Singh born in 1815, preached extreme puritanism. His disciples were required to give up
meat and fish-eating. They were required to dress themselves in pure white clothes.
Greater emphasis was laid on devotional prayer. In course of time Ram Singh assumed
enough temporal power and quarreled with the British. He was deported to Rangoon,
where he died in 1885. The succeeding gurus confined their activities purely to religion.
Sikh reformers formed yet another organization called the Singh Sabha. The objective of
the movement was two-fold. It wanted to bring to the Sikh community the benefits of
western enlightenment through new learning and education. And, it worked to counteract
the activities of the Christian missionaries as well as Hindu revivalists among the
backward and ignorant Sikhs. Several modern educational institutions were founded—
the most notable being the Khalsa College at Amritsar.
The Challenge posed by the West, thus stirred the Indian mind to its depth. Indians tried
to revive what was best in their religion and culture, at the same time they were prepared
to accept the best elements of the Western civilization.

158
 Peasant Movements in Modern India

Some of the older conceptions of the alleged passivity of Indian peasants have recently
been broken. Barrington Moore, Jr. says that peasant rebellions in India were relatively
rare and completely ineffective unlike China. Barrington Moore attributes the alleged
weakness of Indian peasant movements to the caste system and the hierarchical division
of society as well as to the strength of bourgeois leadership and the pacifying influence of
Gandhi on the peasantry.
Recent researches, however, suggest that this alleged passivity of the peasantry is a
myth. Kathleen Gough says that, in fact, peasant revolts have been common both during
and since British period and mentions seventy-seven peasant revolts, thus breaking the
wrong perception of their being neutral and passive. She concedes that the peasant
uprisings in India were of a lesser geographical expanse than in China. But the reasons
for this were the unique political condition of the country. India was not a unified country
like China but was politically fragmented. Moreover, the administrative machinery set up
by the British after 1858 was much more organised and repressive than the Manchu
administration in China. As a result local rebellions could not grow into a formidable all
India movement. As regards the caste system scholars like E M S Namboodripad and
Irfan Habib have argued that it was an enabling factor insofar as it provided a network for
them to assemble quickly.
Despite the limitations the peasant movements tended to be fairly frequent though
localised. On the basis of the seventy -seven revolts that she studied Kathleen Gough has
divided peasant rebellion into five groups. She does not distinguish between tribal and
peasant movements because the tribals too are one kind of peasantry. This is to an extent
right.
The first type of rebellion which Gough calls the Restorative Rebellions resembles
Kumar Suresh Singh’s Primary Resistance of the tribal movements. Both kinds of
movements were under traditional leadership. The goals of Restorative Rebellions were
complete annihilation or expulsion of the British and reversion of the previous
government and agrarian relations. Gough says that twenty-nine revolts involving
peasants involving peasants as the main force were counted for this type of the
movement. The Revolt of 1857 can be regarded as the biggest Restorative Rebellion
because the leaders included the traditional Rajas and Nawabs with the emperor of Delhi
as the figurehead.
The second group of Gough is Religious or Millenarian Rebellions which
corresponds with Kumar Suresh Singh’s Secondary Resistance of tribal movements.
Gough talks of twenty such rebellions. Prominent among them were the Munda tribal
movement under Birsa Munda in the 1890s, the Naikda tribal movement in Gujarat under

159
the Hindu religious leader Joria Bhagat in 1867-70 and the early movement of Moplah
peasants in the 1830s through 1850s led by Mambram Tangal. In their expectation of a
sudden and total change most of these movements were transformative rather than
restorative.
Gough borrows her third type from Hobsbawm’s Primitive Rebels which she terms
as Social Banditry. This involved large scale robbery. Their social base could be limited
or extensive. They were driven by the ideal of Robinhood. They robbed the rich and
sympathised with the poor. The common masses sympathised with the bandits and
extended support to them. The dacoits of Chabal fall under this category. They enjoyed
the support and protection in their own locality.In the colonial period some tribes were
branded as criminal tribes in official records. This was because some primitive tribes who
were still in the food gathering stage resisted the encroachment of their domain by the
colonial officials. When their resistance was suppressed they took to organised robbery.
David Arnold points out by using police statistics that there were variations in
instances of dacoity and crime in Madras rural areas caused by instances of famines.. The
number of rural crimes tended to be highest between February and June when there was
shortage of food. More militants among the rural people tended to be social bandits.
Arnold points out that sometimes such banditry acted as a harbinger of a major peasant
uprising.
Terrorist vengeance is Gough’s fourth group. Terrorists individually or in a small
group killed landlords, revenue agents, money lenders or other authorities or wealthy
persons in vengeance but also partly with a sense of group pride or natural justice. Most
of the Moplah killings of British officials, landlords and revenue agents were carried out
to avenge specific wrong, to mete out rural justice and to afford desperate paupers escape
to salvation through martyrdom.
Ghough’s fifth and final group is ‘Mass Insurrections’ which was a very conscious
movement of protest by a large number of people. She talks of fourteen such revolts in
which peasants provided the leadership and were the sole or dominant force. She divides
this group into two broader categories explaining that the peasant movement can be either
transformative trying to bring about total change or reformative in attempting to end a
particular evil. Though there is a lot of interpenetration between the two on the political
level, theoretically these are two separate movements. A Reformative Movement is
generally thought to be non-violent but actually it is not so. Terrorist vengeance was
generally of a reformative nature. Transformative Movements, on the other hand, were
not always violent contrary to general perception. Transformative Movements were
millenarian in nature where the leaders convinced their followers that the world would
change.
Peasant movements guided by revolutionary left ideology were generally
transformative because they aimed at total effective change. Telangana peasant war in

160
1946-48 was aimed at total overthrow of oppressive powers. Gough says that these
movements mostly affected the lower strata of rural society as the rich peasantry was not
in favour of a complete upheaval in the system.
The history of peasant movements can be divided into four broad phases. Till 1857
the leadership was provided by local chiefs and dispossessed zamindars. It was, however,
not a new feature as Irfan Habib says that during the Mughal period there were numerous
instances of zamindars leading the local peasant resistance against heavy taxation.
After 1857 the resistance led by the zamindars seems to have died down because the
British increasingly tried to placate the traditional zamindars and chiefs throughout the
country. In Oudh the talukdars who had revolted most furiously during the Mutiny were
pacified by the retention of talukdari and the abandonment of Dalhousie’s policy of
annexation. Thus the feudal elements of traditional Indian society who previously had led
the movements were placated by the British.
The 1870s and 1880s were the periods of rapid commercialisation which had a
terrible impact on the agrarian society. Two types of revolt developed. In the Ryotwari
areas were the zamindars were non-existent movement developed against the
moneylenders as they became more oppressive and the indebtedness of peasants
gradually led to their loss of land. Peasants with some property led this kind of
movement. In the permanently settled areas like Bengal, on the other hand, where
zamindars had the prominence there developed movements against the zamindars led by
the rich peasantry as evidenced in the Pabna movement in Bengal in 1873. These
movements were not directed against the British who were rather seen as distant
protectors.
From the last decade of the nineteenth century till the end of the First World War the
countryside became quiter because of the growing pressure of British machinery. Two
other factors were also at work. Some ameliorative measures were taken by the British to
quieten the rural population. In Bengal an act of occupancy was passed in 1885. In
Bombay a law was passed to restrain the moneylenders and traders from grabbing the
land.
Still the last quarter of the nineteenth century was a terrible period for the peasants
because of the famines that wreaked havoc on them and depleted their ranks. Those who
survived the famines saw an upswing in their fortunes because the pressure on land was
eased. The Extremist phase of national movement developed during this period but it did
not have any peasant mass base. It was after the First World War that peasant issues got
meshed with the wider national movement when Gandhi extended his support base
among the peasants. From the 1930 onwards trend towards the left emerged in the
peasant movement like the Kisan Sabha in Bihar. The 1930s also witnessed the growth of
separatist tendencies among the peasants like in East Bengal where the predominantly
Muslim peasantry was dissatisfied with the Hindu zamindars and this culminated in riots.

161
The worldwide economic depression further aggravated the problem faced by the
peasants and this manifested itself in the newer leftist and separatist movements.
Regional Studies: Maharashtra, Bengal and Malabar
Multiple peasant movements were witnessed in Maharashtra in the second half of the
nineteenth century. In 1875 there occurred a series of revolts which are known as the
Deccan riots. The British period saw the mortgaging of property on a large scale. In the
prosperous period of the 1860s brought about by the high prices paid for Indian cotton
during the American Civil War many Deccan peasants borrowed on mortgage far more
extensively than they had ever done before. The absence of a local money lending social
group in the Deccan made it imperative for the peasants to borrow from the immigrant
Marwari and Gujrati communities. With the sharp contraction of prices after the return of
normalcy a large number of peasants found that their land was slipping away into the
hands of the money lending outsiders. The Deccan riots were obviously in reaction to
this.
Unlike the Permanent Settlement the revenue demand in the Bombay Presidency was
not fixed in perpetuity. A revision was mandated every thirty years. The 1870s was the
period when it was slated to happen. This period saw a steep rise in revenue demand. This
was the spark that caused peasant revolts in thirty-three villages in May and September
1875.
I J Catarich points out that the pattern followed in most of the riots was that peasants
attacked the houses of outsider money lenders. Their main target was the bond that was
the proof of their borrowing. The movement was not marked by much violence. It was a
Reformative rather than a Transformative movement. A rumour preceded the riots that
the Queen whose image appeared on the silver coin was sympathetic to their cause. The
rumour was fuelled on the belief that the Highness was contemplating action against the
oppressive money lenders and by rising in revolt the peasants were carrying forward the
task of the government. In 1879 a peculiar movement grew with links with the national
movement. Phadke, an educated lower middle class Chitpawan Brahmin, assembled a
group of forty persons and started looting banks and the rich to wage a war against the
British. Phadke’s movement was a mix of many things. First, he was in a way a precursor
of an armed middle class militant struggle against the British. Secondly, he gathered
around himself the tribal people thus bridging the gulf between the illiterate rural masses
and the educated middle class nationalists. Thirdly, in reality was a kind of social
banditry. In 1896-97 there was a resurgence of their movement occasioned by frequent
famines leading to a demand for the reduction in revenue assessment, a demand that the
government was not inclined to accept. Tilak organised Sarvajanik Sabha among them to
educate them on their legal rights. In the Famine Code there was a provision of reduction
in revenue demand in the areas affected by famine. Tilak made them aware of this aspect.
However, the involvement of Tilak and other nationalists in this rent reduction campaign

162
did not continue for long. In the absence of a leadership from above the peasants
themselves carried on their campaign. From 1880s Jyotiba Phule led a lower caste
movement against Brahmanical dominance.
Bengal
Anti-moneylender movement which was fairly prevalent in Maharashtra was rare in
Bengal except for the tribal areas of Chotanagpur and Santhal Pargana where movements
were witnessed against the dikus. In large parts of Bengal the moneylenders were not
outsiders. Most of them were the jotedars, the rich peasantry of the villages who had
accumulated money through trade. It was they who advanced loans to the poor fellow
villagers. It was difficult to revolt against them because that would have adversely
affected the cultivation. Besides the jotedars had family ties with poor peasantry. The
main target of the discontent among the peasantry in Bengal was the zamindars. In 1873 a
movement was started in the Yusuf Shahi pargana in the Pabna district of Bengal by the
occupancy ryots against the attempt by the landlords to do away with the occupancy titles
granted to a large number of cultivators by the Rent Act X of 1859. The articles by Binoy
Chaudhury and K K Sengupta suggest that the Pabna Movement was a limited kind of a
movement. The demands were also of a modest nature- reduction in land revenue and a
standard measurement of land cultivated by them. The demands showed peasants’
pathetic dependence on British officials against their oppressors. The Pabna Movement
was a kind of a limited Reformist Movement. Even though the landlords were Hindus and
ryots were Muslims the movement did not take on a communal colour. However, in
1906-07 and 1908 a series of communal riots broke out, known as Mymensingh riots,
which took the form of an attack on houses of zamindars. The riots were a reflection of
agrarian discontent and the failure of nationalist leaders to take up their cause.
The Moplah Uprising in Malabar
The coastal area of Malabar in the colonial period was marked by Hindu landlords and
Muslim ryots called Moplah. The social division was marked by Namboodri Brahmins
Nayar Jenmis or landlords at the top while below them were Pulayas, Parayas and the
agricultural labourer. The British picked up Namboodri and Nayars as landlords and
declared Kanamdars and Verumpattamdars as their tenants. Since the landlords were
Hindus and the tenants were Muslims the former experienced an upswing in their fortune
under the British rule while the latter found their condition deteriorating. The late
nineteenth and early twentieth century in Malabar witnessed the growth of a Muslim
revivalist movement. The Muslim population was fast increasing. Cherumars, the
untouchables, were converted to Islam. In Ernad and Vellunad taluka in south Mlabar
twenty-two uprisings took place between 1836 and 1854. The outbreaks followed a
similar pattern. Almost invariably the outbreaks involved a group of Moplah youths
attacking the house and property of Brahmin Jenmis, of Nayar officials or Jenmis’
servants. There were instances also of the burning and defilement of temples and the

163
burning and looting of landlords’ houses. Between 1855 and 1880 several more Moplah
outbreaks took place. Moplahs were inspired by a belief that it was a religious war against
the Hindus and the British.
Conard Wood points out that there sprang up among the lower ranks of the Moplahs
a sect which bore the hallmarks of a millenarian movement. The arrival of a mysterious
ship with arms and ammunitions and other necessary provisions was eagerly awaited in
the belief that should they be able to recruit 40,000 men in the meanwhile they would be
able to defeat both the Jenmis and the British. Dhanagre points out that between 1862 and
1880 there was a four- fold increase in the number of tenants who were driven out of land
because of their failure to pay rent. This resulted in an increase in the cases of dacoity and
social banditry. There were also rumours of an end to the British rule as the German army
was said to be coming to save the Moplah.
Gross neglect of the basic issue of tenurial security and the deteriorating landlord-
tenant relations and also the political alienation of the poor peasantry were the principal
factors behind the Moplah rebellion of 1921. The Congress and the Khilafat organisations
attempted to win their support. The British arrested prominent Khilafat leaders. Armed
Moplah uprising took place in Malabar in August-September, 1921. Their leader Ali
Musaliar proclaimed at a meeting, “In our Muslim state there will be no expensive
litigation. We do not want vakils. No one should have more than what he actually needs.
We do not want this present system of police.”
By the end of December 1921 the Moplah rebellion was completely suppressed. As per
the official figures 2337 rebels were killed, 1652 were injured and 45,405 surrendered.
This was the official figure which was an under reporting. Around 150 Moplah prisoners
were transported to Madras in a wagon out of which around 70 died of suffocation.

164
 Unit-VI
(a) Indian National Congress

The Indian National Congress was founded in 1885 to agitate for a larger role of the
Indians in the governance of their country. The vision of Congress was based on the
belief that all Indians had shared common economic and political interests and that those
interests were in conflict with that of the British. For the collective welfare of all Indians,
therefore, a restructuring of the relations between the rulers and the subjects was required.
Amongst the British officials in India a handful of them found the racially exclusivist and
discriminatory practices of the Raj politically inadvisable and morally distasteful. They
believed in making room for the legitimate aspirations of English speaking Indians to find
an expression. One such sympathetic British officer A O Hume played a major role in the
founding of the Indian National Congress as a legitimate forum for the articulation of
their grievances and aspirations
The formation of Indian National Congress was the culmination of the process of
political awakening that started in the 1860s and 1870s. In these years a group of western
educated young intellectuals imbued with a feeling of nationalism entered politics. They
founded new political organisations in place of the older ones which were narrow in
terms of their social base and outlook. Surendra Nath Banerjee and Anand Mohan Bose
founded the Indian Association in Calcutta. M. Veeraraghavachariar and Subramania Iyer
started the Madras Mahajana Sabha, while K.T. Telang and Pherozeshah Mehta set up the
Bombay Presidency Association. Among the early organisations only the Poona
Sarvajanik Sabha remained active. The formation of Indian National Congress was also
in line with the earlier efforts in this direction to influence the government policy.
Participation in local politics had provided the early nationalists with a kind of
training that would come in handy when they entered a larger political arena. It also gave
them the experience of working with the colonial institutions and at the same time
kindled in them the desire to mould them for the benefit of Indians.
The period was marked by the publication of a large number of newspapers with a
nationalist orientation that were to play a major role in the emerging political climate.
Newspapers like The Hindu, The Tribune. The Bengalee, Mahratta, The Kesari, Anand
Bazar Patrika were being edited by young people with a nationalist fervour. The Indians
who had gained the experience of leading agitations over the last ten years were imbued
with a new confidence. Campaigns were being led since 1875 on the issue of cotton
import duty in the interest of the textile industry. Indigenisation of the civil services was
another demand around which a massive campaign was organised in the years 1877-88.
Lord Lytton’s Afghan adventure was vociferously opposed and the British Government
was forced to bear the cost of the Second Afghan War. The Indian Press started a massive
campaign against the government to thwart its attempt to control the press through

165
Vernacular Press Act. The Indians had also opposed the effort to disarm them through the
Arms Act. The other important area of protest was against plantation economy which had
reduced the labourers to serfdom.
The year 1883-84 was marked by the Ilbert Bill controversy sparked by the
provisions of the Bill that would have stripped the British residing in rural areas of the
immunity from being tried by a magistrate of Indian origin. Though the Bill was to have
only very little real impact since in 1883 there were only two Indian origin civil servants
who could have such an authority, the very concept of Indians having even a notional
authority was enough to agitate the British who saw it as undermining their privilege.
They vocally argued for its withdrawal. The agitation by the British revealed their deep
seated racial bias and resistance to political reforms. The impact of their resistance on
Lord Ripon who was forced to modify the Bill also underscored the importance for
Indians the need to organise themselves to protest against such unreasonableness.
The formation of an all India body which could take up the issues concerning the
rights and interests of Indians was thought of as need of the hour. The Indian Mirror of
Calcutta vigorously campaigned for this. The early nationalists were more in favour of
following a policy of persuasion in their approach towards the British. AO Hume, a
former civil servant and a close associate of Lord Ripon came to assume the role of an
adviser in the matter. The nationalists knew that because of his experience Hume could
well advise them on how to influence the bureaucracy and the parliament. This realisation
placed Hume in a leadership position. Indians accepted his leadership also because he
was seen as an objective figure free from petty considerations. Moreover, any
organisation established solely by Indians ran the risk of facing official suppression, as
Gokhale opined. Bipan Chandra sums up the irony of it all by saying that while the
Congress was seen by Hume and the other British as a ‘safety valve’, the Congress saw
Hume as a ‘lightening conductor’.
The ground for another popular agitation was provided by a demand among a section
of Indians to be recruited in the auxiliary force known as ‘volunteer corps’. It was a
demand made by educated Indians. Initially the government thought only of recruiting
only the European and Eurasian males in this corps. In 1885 the Indians too claimed that
they be considered for this voluntary service as well. The demand was almost granted
when an officer in Madras enlisted three Indians in the service who fulfilled the physical
and educational requirements for the job. What ensued was a heavy resistance from the
Europeans which led the government to abandon this policy and close the doors on the
recruitment of Indians.
In a prelude to the setting up of all India organisation AO Hume travelled over the
length and breadth of the country in a bid to bring diverse political groups on an
integrated platform. He toured Bombay, Calcutta, Madras, North-West Provinces, Awadh
and the Punjab. He broached organising an all India conference on an annual basis by a

166
central organisation having control over the political activities throughout the country.
The organisation had to be tasked with the responsibility of framing a charter of demands
to be presented before the British. A telegraphic agency was to be created simultaneously
which would transmit India’s point of view to the British press in an attempt to free it
from an anti- India bias.
In a unique attempt at political socialisation Indians showed great interest in the
general election in Britain in 1885. One of their favourites was William Digby who was a
former editor of Madras Times and who was fighting the election as a member for India.
Many Indian delegates went to Britain to acquaint the British electorate with the Indian
issue. Much to the disappointment of the Indians who had gone there to canvass and
campaign most of their candidates lost the election and their efforts came to a naught.
The first ever session of the Congress held in Bombay was attended by seventy-two
delegates. It elected W.C. Bonerjee as the President. A remark made by W.C. Bonerjee in
1898 sparked a huge controversy. Bonerjee had said that Hume was acting at the behest
of the Viceroy Lord Dufferin. The pleas made by Hume to the British to give suitable
concessions to educated Indians to avoid imminent mass violence came to be viewed
subsequently in the light of this remark. Some radical historians like R.P. Dutt has seized
on this remark to provide a critique of the Congress. They argued that Congress was
formed by a former civil servant acting at the instance of the then Viceroy to channelize
popular discontent. This conspiracy theory was given a lie by the opening of the private
papers of Lord Dufferin which unequivocally establishes that Hume’s theory of an
impending political crisis arising out of widespread discontent had no credence with the
ruling dispensation. It also reveals that the Viceroy did not entertain Hume’s request for
an official participation in the Congress.
A brief survey of the events and the historical processes leading to the formation of
the Indian National Congress in 1885 makes it clear that the Indians gradually became
aware of the conflict of interest between British Imperialism and India’s welfare. This
realisation formed the basis on which an all India organisation, the Indian National
Congress, came to be built to give vent to the legitimate aspirations of the subjugated
multitudes. The role played by a good Samaritan in this noble venture is laudable and
unquestionable.

167
 (b) A Critique of Colonialism (Moderates, Extremists
and Militant Nationalists)

The Moderates (1885-1905)

The early Congressmen who dominated the affairs of the Indian National Congress from
1885 to 1905 were known as the Moderates. They belonged to a class which was Indian
in blood and colour but British in taste, in opinions, in morals and in intellect. They were
supporters of the British institutions. Their view was that what India need was a balanced
and lucid presentation of her needs before the Englishmen and their Parliament and their
demands were bound to be satisfied. They had full faith in the British sense of Justice and
fairplay. India’s connection with England was considered to be boon and not a curse.
The Moderates believed in loyalty to the British Crown. In his Presidential address W.C.
Bonnenjee observed; “She, Britain, had given them order; she had given them railways
and above all she had given them the inestimable blessings of Western education. Their
desire to be governed according to the ideas of government prevalent in Europe was in no
way incompatible with their loyalty to the British Government. All they desired was that
the basis of the Government should be wide and people should have their proper
legitimate share in it”. To quote Dadabhai Naoroji, “It is our good fortune that we are
under a rule which makes it possible for us to meet in this manner. We are freely allowed
to speak our minds without the least hesitation; such a thing is possible under British rule
and British rule only.” Again, ‘Let us speak out like men and proclaim that we are loyal
to the backbone; that we understand the benefits the English rule has conferred upon us.”
Ambika Charan Mazumdar declared, “Every heart (in India) is beating in unison with
reverence and devotion to the British throne, overflowing with revived confidence in and
gratitude towards British statesmanship.” Surendranath Banerjee described the attitude of
the Moderates towards England in these words: “Let us work with unwavering loyalty to
the British connection. Then will the Congress have fulfilled its mission; justified the
hopes of those who founded it, one who worked for it—not, by the supersession of
British rule in India but by broadening its basis, liberalising its spirit, ennobling its
character and placing it upon the unchangeable foundations of a nation’s affections. It is
not severance that we look forward to, but unification, permanent embodiment as an
integral part of that great empire which has given the rest of the world the models of free
institutions and covered the world with free states.” Again, “To England we look for
guidance. To England we look for sympathy in the struggle. From England must come
the crowing mandate which will enfranchise our people. England is our political guide
and our moral preceptor in the exalted sphere of political duty. English history has taught
those principles of freedom which we cherish with our life-blood. We have been fed upon
the strong food of English constitutional freedom.” In his Presidential address in 1899,
R.C. Dutt declare: “Educated Indians practically identified itself with British rulers, seeks

168
to perpetuate British rule, is loyal to the British rule not through sentiment but through the
strong motive of self-interest; because it is by a continuance of the British rule that
educated India seeks to secure that large measure of self-Government, that position
among the modern nations of the earth which is our aim and endeavour to secure.” In his
address of welcome to the Congress in 1888, Pandit Ayodhya Nath observed: “It is
impossible to find on the face of this earth a people more loyal than my countrymen. We
claim the more perfect union of India and England and yet we are called disloyal.”
The Moderates relied upon the solemn pledges given by the British Government to the
people of India from time to time. The Queen’s Proclamation of 1858 was one of them.
To quote Surendranath Banerjee, “The Proclamation is the magna Carta of our rights and
principles. The Proclamation, the whole Proclamation and nothing but the Proclamation
is our watchword, our battle-cry and the ensign of victory. It is the gospel of our political
redemption.”
The Moderates believed in orderly progress and constitutional agitationprogress and
constitutional agitation. They believed in patience, steadiness, conciliation and union. To
quote Suendranath Banerjee. “The triumphs of liberty are not to be won in a day. Liberty
is a jealous goddess, exacting in her worship and claiming from her votaries prolonged
and assiduous devotion.” Baddruddin Tyabji, President of the Indian National Congress
in 1887, observed, “Be moderate in your demands, just in your criticism, correct in your
facts and logical in your conclusions.” To quote Dr. Rash Behari Ghose, “You must have
patience. You must learn to wait and everything will come to you in time.” R.C. Dutt
stated, “The people of India are not fond of sudden changes and revolutions. They do not
ask for new constitution issuing like armed Minervas from the heads of legislative
Jupiter’s. They desire to strengthen the present Government and bring it more in touch
with the people. They desire to see some Indian members in the Secretary of State’s
Council and in the Viceroy’s Executive Council, representing India agriculture and
industries. They wish to represent the interests of the Indian people in the discussion of
every important administrative question.”
The Moderates believed in constitutional agitation within the four corners of the law,
They believed that their main task was to educate people, to arouse national political
consciousness and to create a united public opinion on political questions. For this
purposethey held meetings. They criticized the Government through the press. They
drafted and submitted memorials and petitions to the Government, to the officials of the
Government of India and also to the British Government. They also worked to influence
the British Parliament and public opinion in England. The object of the memorials and
petitions was to enlighten the British public and political leaders about the conditions
prevailing in India. Deputations of leading Indian leader were sent to Britain from time to
time. A British committee of the Indian National Congress was founded in 1906 and it

169
started a journal called “India”. Dadabhai Naoroji spent a major part of his life and
income in Britain doing propaganda among its people and politicians.
The object before the Moderates was the “wider employment of Indians in higher offices
in the public service and the establishment of representative institutions.” Surendra Nath
Banerjee pointed out that “they lay at the root of all other Indian problems. If power were
vested in us to legislate and to control the finances and to carry on the administration
through and by our men, in accordance with the principles laid down by our
representatives, we should have self-Government in the true sense.” This could be
accomplished by the goodwill and cooperation of the British people. With their firm faith
in the values of Western culture and the sense of justice of the Englishmen, no other
attitude was possible. They believed in slow progress towards democracy which
according to many of them was to take a lot of time to grow and prosper in India. To
quote Gokhale, “Liberalism and moderation will be the watchwords of our association.
The spirit of liberalism implied a freedom from race and creed prejudices and a steady
devotion to all that seeks to do justice between man and man, giving to the rulers the
loyalty due to the law that they are bound to administer, but securing at the same time to
the people the equality which is their right under the law. Moderation implies the
conditions of never vainly aspiring after the impossible or after too remote ideals but
striving each day to take the next step in the order of natural growth that lies nearest to
our hands in a spirit of compromise and fairness.”
The Moderates were fully aware of the fact that India was a nation in the making. Indian
Nationhood was gradually coming into being and could not be taken for granted as an
accomplished fact. They worked constantly for the development and consolidation of the
feelings of national unity irrespective of region, caste or religion. They hoped to make an
humble beginning in this direction by promoting close contacts and friendly relations
among the people from different parts of the country. The economic and political
demands of the Moderates were formulated with a view to unify the Indian people on the
basis of a common political programme.
The Moderates carried on a persistent agitation for the reduction of heavy land revenue
payments. They urged the Government to provide cheap credit to the peasantry through
agricultural banks and to make available irrigation facilities on a large scale. They asked
for improvement in the conditions of work of the plantation labourers. They demanded a
radical change in the existing pattern of taxation and expenditure. They demanded the
abolition of salt tax which hit hard the poor and lower middle classes. They complained
of India’s growing poverty and economic backwardness and they put all the blame on the
of the indigenous industries in India. They demanded the rapid development of the
modern industries in the country and asked the Government to give tariff protection to
them. They advocated the use of Swadeshi goods and the boycott of British goods to help
Indian industries. The Moderates criticized the individual administrative measures and

170
worked hard to oppression. They demanded the Indianisation of the higher grades of the
administrative services in India. This demand was put forward on economic, political and
moral grounds. Economically, the high salaries paid to he Europeans put a heavy burden
on Indian finance and contributed to the economic drain. The Europeans sent out of India
a large part of their salaries and their pensions were paid in England. That added to the
drain of wealth from India. Politically, the European Civil Servants ignored the Indian
needs and favoured the European capitalists at the cost of the Indian capitalists. It was
hoped that the Indianisation of the services would make the administration more
responsive to Indian needs. Morally, the existing system dwarfed the Indian character,
reducing the tallest Indian to permanent inferiority in his own country.
The Moderates wanted the separation of the judiciary from the executive. They were
opposed to the policy of disarming the people of India by the Government. They wanted
the Government to spend more money on the spread of education in the country, to set up
agricultural banks to help the peasants and to undertake irrigation programmes to help the
agriculturists. They also took up the cause of the Indian workers who had migrated to the
British colonies.
The Moderates opposed tooth and nail the restrictions imposed by the Government on the
freedom of speech and the press. In 1897, many leaders were arrested and sentenced to
long terms of imprisonment for spreading disaffection against the Government through
their speech and writings. The people of India protested against the interference of the
Government with their liberties. The arrest of Tilak in 1897 marked the beginning of a
new phase of the nationalist movement.
The Moderates demanded the expansion and reform of the existing Legislative Councils.
They demanded the introduction of the system of direct elections and an increase in the
number of members and powers of the Legislative Councils. Their agitation forced the
Government to pass the Indian Councils Act of 1892 but they were not satisfied with
what was given to the people of India. No wonder, they declared the Act of 1892 as a
“hoax’. They demanded a larger share for Indians in the Legislative Council. They
wanted to have a say in the matters of taxation. Later on, they put forward the claim for
Swaraj or self-Government within the British Empire on the model of the other self-
governing colonies.
The basic weakness of the Moderates was that the movement under them did not have a
wide appeal. The area of its influence was limited to the urban community. They did not
have the support of the masses. They were of the view that time was not ripe for throwing
a challenge to the foreign rulers as that was likely to invite pre-mature repression. The
narrow base of the Moderates does not imply that they fought for the narrow interests of
the social classes and group which joined it. Its programmes and politics championed the
cause of all sections of the Indian people and represented nation-wide interests against the
exploitation by Britain.

171
Attitude of the Government towards Moderates
As regards the attitude of the Government, it became hostile soon after its inception. Lord
Dufferin looked upon the foundation of the Congress with suspicion. In 1887, he attacked
the Congress and ridiculed it as representing a “microscopic minority of the people.”
Lord Hamilton, Secretary of State for India, complained to Dadabhai Naoroji in 1900 in
these words: “You announce yourself as a sincere supporter of British rule;
youvehemency denounce the conditions and consequences which are inseparable from
the maintenance of that rule”. The British officers publicly criticized and condemned the
Indian National Congress and its leaders. The leaders were branded as “disloyal Babus”,
“seditions Barhmans” and “violent villains”. The Indian National Congress was described
as “a factory of sedition” and the Congressmen as disappointed candidates for office and
discontented lawyers who represented no one but themselves. Lord Curzon declared in
1900, “The Congress is tottering to its fall and one of my great ambitions, while in India,
is to assist it is a peaceful demise.” Lord Elgin openly threatened the Indians in 1898 in
these words: “India was conquered by the sword and by the sword it shall be held”.
The British officials pushed further the policy of “divide and rule” to weaken the
nationalist movement. They encouraged Sir Syed Ahmad Khan, Raja Shive Prasad and
other pro-British Indian to start an anti-Congress movement. They tried to drive a wedge
between the Hindus and Muslims. They fanned communal rivalries among the educated
Indians on the question of jobs in Government services. They tried to turn the Muslims
against the nationalist movement. They exploited he controversy around Hindi and Urdu.
AN effort was made to turn the feudal classes against the new intelligentsia, province
against province, caste and group against group.

Criticism of the Moderates

It is true that B.C. Pal was connected with the Congress since 1887 but by 1902, he came
to the conclusion that the moral and political uplift of the people of India could never be
achieved by the methods of constitutional agitation advocated by the Moderates.
Therefore, he suggested that it was no use begging for rights and looking for help from
outside. He asked the Indians to depend upon self-help and self-sacrifice instead of
begging. The view of Lala Lajpat Rai was that the Congress under the Moderates
“Lacked essentials of a national movement.” It was a “halting, half-hearted political
movement depending on the sympathy and goodwill of the class against whom it is
directed”. His estimate of the work of the Moderates in the nationalist movement was:
“The movement was neither inspired by the people nor devised or planned by them. It
was a movement not from within. “It lacked the essential of a popular movement. Its
leaders were not in touch with the masses. It was not effective and encouraged
“opportunism” and “trade” in the name of patriotism. It demanded concession and not
liberty. It was not based on sacrifice. It was not even a middle-class movement. It touched
only the small upper strata which was hardly capable of strong political action.

172
Achievements of the Moderates
If we evaluate the work of the Moderates, it appears that they did not achieve much. Very
few of the reforms advocated by them were carried out. The foreign rulers treated them
with contempt. They failed to acquire roots among the common people and even those
who joined the Congress with high hopes were feeling more and morae dis-illusioned.
The methods of the Moderates were described as those of mendicancy or beggary through
prayers and petitions. However, it is not correct to say that the political record of the
Moderates was a barren one. Taking into consideration the difficulties they had to
confront at that time, they achieved a lot. It is their achievements in the wider sense that
led latter on to the more advanced stages of the nationalist movements. The Moderates
represented the most aggressive forces of the time. They made possible a decisive shift in
the Indian politics. They succeeded in creating a wide political awakening and in arousing
among the middle and lower middle classes in India the feeling that they belonged to one
common nation. They made the people of India conscious of the bonds of common
political, economic and cultural interests and the existence of a common enemy and thus
helped to weld them in a common nationality. They popularised among the people ideas
of democracy and civil liberty. They did pioneering work in mercilessly exposing the true
character of British imperialism in India. Even though they were moderate in politics and
political methods, they successfully brought to light the most important political and
economic aspects of the Indian reality that India was being ruled by a foreign power for
economic exploitation. The agitation of the Moderates in the economic field completely
undermined the moral foundations of British rule in India. The period of the Moderates
was the seed time of Indian nationalism. The Moderates sowed the seeds well and deep.
They evolved a common Political and economic programme which united the different
sections of the people. In spite of their many failures, they laid strong foundations for the
national movement to grow upon and they deserve a high place among the makers of
modern India. Gokhale has rightly pointed out that if the leaders of the early Congress
had not been slow and cautious, their movement could have been crushed at the very
beginning by the Government of India. Gokhale objected to the people calling his policy
as one of mendicancy. He asserted that he stood for the best and practical in politics. To
quote him, “We are not beggars, and our policy is not that of mendicancy. We are
ambassadors of our people at a foreign court, to watch and guard the interests of our
country and get as much for her as we can.”
The view of B.C. Pal is that in spite of their many failures, the Moderates laid strong
foundations for the national movement to grow upon and they deserve a high place
among the makers of modern India. Dr. Pattabhi Sitaramayya writes thus about the
Moderates, “We cannot blame them for the attitude they adopted as pioneers of Indian
political reform any more than we can blame the brick and mortar that is buried six feet
deep in the foundation and plinth of a modern edifice. They have made possible the
superstructure, storey by storey, by colonial self-Government, Home Rule within the

173
Empire, Swaraj and on the top of all, complete independence.” The view of Dr. S.R.
Mehrotra is that the Moderates had a fairly correct estimate of their situation and what
they could possibly say and do. They behaved as they did not because they were naive,
credulous or cowardly but because they were helpless. They were being ruled by the
British and they tried to deal with them as best as they could.
The full meaning of the maxim that India must be ruled in the interest of the Indians was
now fully realised. The ultimate objectives of the Indian National Congress were now
becoming crystal clear. They made the issue of nationalism “a dominant one in the affairs
of India”. It can be truly said that the foundations of a vigorous national movement were
soundly laid during the years 1885 to 1905.

Rise of Extremism or Militant Nationalism

Gradually over the years, the trend of militant nationalism had been growing in the
country. It found visible expression in the agitation against the partition of Bengal in
1905. It is not correct to say that it was this incident of partition which generated the
extreme form of nationalism. It only provided a focus for it. The rise and growth of
militant nationalism which may be described as the second stage of the Indian nationalist
movement was due to the operation of many and varied factors.
Facors Responsible for the rise of Militant Nationalism .The Indian Councils Act, 1892
did not satisfy the aspirations of even the Moderates. It was contended that the policy of
appeals and prayers had brought no results. The Government of India considered that
policy a sign of weakness. To quote Tilak, “Political rights will have to be fought for. The
Moderates think that these can be won by persuasion, we think that they can only be
obtained by strong pressure.” The constant economic drain on the resources of the
country added to the discontentment in the country. The writings of men like Dinshaw
Wacha, R.C. Dutt and Dadabhai Naoroji proved that the impoverishment of the people of
India was due largely to the deliberate policy of the British Government. The policy of
the Government of India sacrificed the industries of India in the interests of the British
manufacturers. There seemed no prospects for India industries.
Another cause was the discontent created by the outbreak of the famine in 1897. It
affected about 20 millions people and 70,000 square miles of the Indian territory. The
attitude of the Government of India was rather unhappy. While the people were in the
grip of famine, the Government was busy celebrating the Diamond Jubilee of Queen
Victoria. Themoney which was required for the relief of the people was being wasted on
needless celebrations. This was interpreted as an attitude of callousness on the part of the
Government.
The outbreak of the plague in Bombay presidency also added to the discontentment
among the people. The methods adopted by the Government to check the spread of the
disease were unfortunate. No consideration was shown to the sentiments of the people.

174
Mr. Rand, the Plague Commissioner of Poona, was the most ruthless in his operations.
Such a state of affairs could not be tolerated by the people and the result was that Mr.
Rand and one of his associates were shot dead.
The exclusion of the intelligentsia of India from all the big jobs in the country created
bitterness. The anti-Indian policy of Lord Curzon added to that discontentment. The view
of Lord Curzon was that “the highest ranks of civil employment must, as a general rule,
be held by Englishmen.” He emphasized that it was only the Englishmen who by their
birth and training were fit to rule India and not the Indians. According to him, Providence
had selected the Englishmen to rule over India and to give freedom to India was against
the will of God. Such a theory of divine right to rule could not be palatable to the Indians
who were learning to demand the right to govern themselves. Lord Curzon was a
bureaucrat par excellence and he put great emphasis on efficiency. He had no sympathy
with the aspirations of the people of India. He acted unmindful of the reactions of the
people, His Viceroyalty was full of “missions, omissions and commissions.” In 1899, he
passed the famous Calcutta Corporation Act which completely officialised the Calcutta
Corporation. The representatives of the people of Calcutta were eliminated. In 1904 was
passed the Indian Universities Act which made the Indian Universities the most
officialised universities in the world. Their autonomy was gone. In 1904 was passed the
Official Secrets Act which widened the definition of “sedition”. The former Acts on the
subject related only to the disclosure of military secrets. The Act of 1904 covered also the
official secrets relating to the civil affairs and newspaper criticism which were likely to
bring the Government into contempt. However, his most controversial measure was the
partition of Bengal in 1905 which led to wide spread agitation not only in Bengal but also
in other parts of India.
By 1905, the Indian nationalists had acquired enough of self-respect and self-confidence.
This was in part the product of religious revival and rapid increase in knowledge
regarding the past achievements of India in the fields of religion, philosophy, art,
literature and administration. The Indians began to take pride in the glory and greatness
of their past. They came to have full faith in their capacity to govern themselves, in the
future greatness of their country and “in the eternal destiny of the Indian people”. This
faith in the character and capacities of the Indians was best embodied in the life and work
of SwamiVivekanand who preached the message of manliness and vigour. He
enlightened his countrymenthat their sad condition was due to their own failures and the
remedy lay in their own hands. By declaring that India had a mission to liberate the world
spiritually, he provided a new goal and a new sense of purpose to the national movement.
By the end of the nineteenth century, the Indians had got rid of “the excessive spirit of
national self-depreciation”. They did not want blind imitation of the West but hoped to
build a new India which had assimilated the best of both the cultures. There was also a
slow recognition of the fact among the Indians that all was not perfect in the Western
civilization which had its own weaknesses problems and failures. This growth of self-

175
respect and self-confidence led many people to question the policy of mendicancy. They
began to assert that the Indian must rely upon their own strength and capacity to make
sacrifices and ultimately become responsible for the destiny of their country. The belief in
self-reliance created an urge for deepening the national movement. It was increasingly
felt that the nationalist cause should no longer draw its main strength from a few upper
class educated Indians. Instead, political consciousness should be aroused amongst the
masses. Political agitation should be broadened to embrace the common people. Political
activities should be carried on all year round instead of being confined to a few days on
which the Indian National Congress or the Provincial Conferences met.
By the close of the nineteenth century, the number of educated Indians had become very
large. Quite a large number of them worked in the administration on extremely low
salaries, while there were many others who increasingly faced unemployment. Their
economic plight drove many of them to Radical politics. Many educated Indians became
the propagators and followers of radical and militant nationalism not so much because of
any personal frustration but because they were educated in Western thought, history and
politics and were quite familiar with the militant national movements of many countries
of Europe.
Certain events abroad during the close of the nineteenth century and the beginning of the
twentieth, tended to encourage the growth of militant nationalism in India. The
emergence of Japan as a modern state showed that even a backward Asian country could
modernise itself without Western control. The defeats of the Italians by the Ethiopians in
1896 and of Russia by Japan in 1905 exploded the myth of European superiority and
invincibility. The revolutionary movements in Egypt, Ireland, Russia and Turkey and the
Boer Wars in South Africa convinced the Indian that a united people willing to make
sacrifices could hope to challenge even the most powerful of despotic governments. More
than anything else, what was needed was an unflinching spirit of patriotism and self-
sacrifice. However, the importance of the influence of international events in creating
militant nationalism in India should not be unduly over-emphasized.
From almost the beginning of the national movement, a school of a militant nationalists
had existed in the country. This school was represented by leaders like Raj Narain Bose
and Ashwani Kumar Dutt in Bengal and Vishnu SastriChiplunkar in Bombay. However,
the most outstanding representative of the militant nationalist school was Lokmanya
Tilak (1856-1920). Soon after his graduation from the University, he devoted his entire
life to the service of his country. He helped to found the New English School and two
newspapers, the Mahratta and the Kesari during the 1880’s. From 1889, he edited the
Kesari through whose columns he regularly preached the religion of nationalism and
impressed on his countrymen the urgency to become courageous, self-reliant and selfless
fighters in the cause of India’s independence. In 1893, he started using the Ganapati
festival to propagate nationalist ideas. In 1895, he started the Shivaji festival to stimulate

176
nationalism among the young men of Maharashtra by holding up the example of Shivaji.
During 1896-97, he carried on the first no-tax campaign in modern Indian history when
he asked famine-stricken peasants to withhold the payment of land revenue if their crops
had failed. He set a concrete example of boldness and sacrifice when the authorities
arrested him in 1897 for spreading hatred and disaffection against the British Indian
Government. As he refused to apologise, he was sentenced to 18months’ rigorous
imprisonment. He set an example of self-sacrifice for his compatriots. In 1908 also, he
was sentenced to 6 years’ rigorous imprisonment.
At the dawn of the twentieth century, the school of militant nationalism found a
favourable political climate and its adherents came forward to lead the second phase of
the Indian national movement. The most outstanding votaries of this school of thought
were Lokmanya Tilak, B.C. Pal, Aurobindo Ghose and Lala Lajpat Rai.
There were certain distinctive political aspects of the programme of the militant
nationalists. They believed that the Indians with their own efforts, must pull the country
out of its down trodden position. That would certainly entail great sacrifices and
sufferings. The writings and political work of the advocates of extremism were full of
boldness and self-confidence. No personal sacrifice appeared to them to be too big in the
cause of their country. The Extremists denied the contention of some of their critics that
India could progress only under the benevolent guidance and control of the British. They
deeply hated foreign rule and their goal was Swaraj or political independence. They had
faith in the strength of the masses. It was firmly believed that Swaraj could be achieved
only through their own strength. Their leaders provided new slogans of political work
among the masses and direct political action by them. There was a tendency to glorify the
past of India. The votaries of Extremism appealed to the people to follow the examples of
heroic leaders like Rana Pratap, Shivaji and Guru Gobind Singh. Although their number
was small by 1905, India possessed a large number of leaders who had acquired in the
previous period a valuable experience of guiding political agitations and leading political
struggles, though on a small scale. Without a trained band of political workers, it would
eve been difficult to escalate the national movement to a higher pitch of popularity and
strength.

The Partition of Bengal

The era of militant nationalism was inaugurated by the agitation against the partition of
Bengal in 1905. On 20 July 1905, Lord Curzon promulgated an order dividing the
province of Bengal into two parts—Eastern Bengal and Assam with a population of 31
millions and Bengal proper with a population of 54 million of whom only 18 million
were Bengalees and the rest of 36 millions were Biharies and Oriyas. The official reason
given for the partition was administrative convenience and efficiency. It was claimed that
the existing province of Bengal was too big to be efficiently administered by one
provincial administration. The partition of Bengal was staunchly opposed by the Indian

177
National Congress and the nationalists of Bengal. Withing Bengal, all strata of
population, whether lawyers, zamindars, ryots, merchants, students, the poor in the cities
and even women, spontaneously denounced the partition of their province.
The nationalists did not see the act of partition as a mere administrative measure. The
excuse of administrative efficiency seemed to be a camouflage to cover the invidious
design of driving a wedge between the Hindus and the Muslims. It was righly pointed out
that the declared objective of administrative efficiency could be more easily and
effectively achieved if the Hindi-cum-Oriya speaking regions of Bengal were detached
from it. The resultant Bengal would be a smaller administrative unit which could be
administered far more efficiently. They saw in the Partition a challenge to Indian
nationalism. They noticed that the measure had been taken in utter disregard of public
opinion which had opposed it with near unanimity when it was first proposed in 1903. It
showed that the Government was not at all responsive to Indian opinion. In fact, the
Partition was seen as “a slap on the face of public opinion.” It was also looked upon as a
deliberate attempt to divide the Bengalee nationalism and solidarity. It was also
considered to be a big blow to the growth of Bengalee language and culture. The
vehemence of the protest against Partition is explained by the fact that it was a blow to
the sentiments of the people of Bengal who were both sensitive and courageous. The
direct consequence of the partition of Bengal was the weakening of the moderate trend
and the strengthening of the militant trend within the national movement.
The anti-partition movement as such was not the work of any single section of the people.
It was the work of the entire nation. In its early stage, its prominent leaders where
Surendranath Banerjee and Krishna Kumar Mitra. However, before long, its leadership
passed into the hands of those who were militant and revolutionary. Both the Moderates
and the militant nationalists cooperated with each other for some time at least.
The anti-partition movement can be said to have been initiated on 7 August, 1905. On
that day, a joint demonstration against the partition was organised in the Town Hall at
Calcutta. From that meeting, delegates dispersed to all corners of Bengal to propagate
their views and thereby to secure greater strength and support for the movement in the
province.
The partition took effect on 16 October, 1905. The leaders of the protest movement
declared it to be a day of national mourning throughout the province. The ceremony of
Raksha Bandhan was utilised in a new way. On that day, all bengalees were asked to tie
the Rakhithread on each other’s wrists as a symbol of unbreakable unity of the Bengalees
and of the two Bengals. This day was also observed as a day of fasting. There was a
general hartal in the city. The people walked bare-footed and bathed in the Ganges in the
early morning hours for purposes of purification. Huge crowds paraded the streets singing
a song of Rabindranath Tagore specially composed for the occasion. The streets of
Calcutta resounded with the cries of Bande Matram which over-night became the national

178
song of Bengal and was soon to become the theme song of the nationalist movement in
India. In the afternoon of 16 October, 1905, a great and unique demonstration occurred
when Anandmohan Bose Laid the foundations of Federation Hall to mark the
indestructible unity of Bengal. Anandmohan Bose addressed a gathering of over 50,000
and the meeting passed the following resolution : “Whereas the Government has thought
fit to effectuate the Partition of Bengal in spite of the universal protest of the Bengalee
nation, we hereby pledge and proclaim that we as a people shall do everything in our
power to counteract the evil effects of the dismemberment of our province and to
maintain the integrity of our race.” This clearly showed that the people of Bengal were
determined not to accept the unnatural partition of their motherland. The public
indignation was universal and deep.

The Swadeshi and Boycott

The Bengal leaders felt that mere demonstrations, public meeting and resolutions were
not likely to produce much effect on the Government. They were persuaded to re-think
the entire problem. Most of them were agreed that the older methods were unproductive.
The need for evolving certain positive measure was considered imperative. The two basic
problems were how to secure the intensification and broadening of the national
movement. Swadeshi and boycott were the two patent slogans which were raised and
soon effective steps were taken to translate those shibboleths into actual practice. Mass
meetings were held all over Bengal where Swadeshi or use of Indian goods and boycott
of British goods were loudly and defiantly proclaimed. In many places, bonfires of
foreign cloth were organised. Shops selling foreign cloth were picketed. The Swadeshi
movement was an immense success. According to Surendranath Banerjee, “Its success
was a revelation to all. It outstripped the anticipation of its inaugurators.” The Swadeshi
movement provided a great encouragement to Indian industries. Many textile mills, soap
and match factories, handloom weaving undertakings, national banks and insurance
companies were opened. Acharya P.C. Ray organised the famous Bengal Chemical
Swadeshi Stores. Even Rabindranath Tagore helped to open the Swadeshi Store.
The Swadeshi movement had many indirect consequences. There was a real efflorescence
of nationalist poetry, prose and journalism. The patriotic songs of the period written by
poets like Rabindranath Tagore, Rajani Kant Sen and Mukunda Das are memorable.
Another constructive activity was the scheme of national education. National educational
institutions where literary, technical or physical education was imparted were opened by
the nationalists who looked upon the existing system of education as too inadequate and
one which tended to denationalise the people. Many rich Indians gave handsome
donations to the newly established institutions of national education. On 15 August, 1906,
a National Council of Education was set up. A National College under the Principalship
of Aurobindo Ghose was started in Calcutta.

179
Role of Students, Women, Muslims and Masses
A prominent part in the Swadeshi movement was played by the students of Bengal. They
practised and propagated Swadeshi and took the lead in organising picketing of shops
selling foreign cloth. Their services to the cause of Swadeshi were invaluable. The
Government made an attempt to penalise those schools and colleges whose students took
an active part in the Swadeshi agitation but the students of Bengal refused to the
frightened and pursued their activities with sustained zeal and dedication. A remarkable
aspect of the Swadeshi movement was that it “invaded” the homes of Bengal and
embraced the women of the land. It was the first real entry of Indian women into active
politics. Prominent Muslims joined the Swadeshi movement and of them the famous
leader Abdul Rasul, Liaquat Hussain and Guznavi deserve special mention. However,
many other middle class Muslims remained neutral or were even won over by the British
with the promises of new job opportunities in East Bengal where the Muslims formed the
majority.
In spite of the popular character of the movement against the Partition of Bengal, the
movement did not really affect or involve the peasantry of Bengal in any significant
manner. It generally remained restricted to the upper and lower middle classes of Bengal.
The cry of Swadeshi and Swaraj was taken up by the other provinces of India. In
Bombay, Madras and in the North the message of Swadeshi spread rapidly. The boycott
of foreign goods caught the imagination of all and sundry. There was sympathy of Bengal
in all the corners of the country. The leading role in spreading the Swadeshi movement to
the rest of the country was played by Tilak who saw that with the inauguration of this
movement in Bengal, a new chapter was opened in the history of Indian nationalism.
Here was a challenge and an opportunity to lead a popular struggle against the British Raj
and to unite All-India in the bond of common sympathy.
The anti-partition movement soon passed under the leadership of militant nationalists like
Tilak, B.C. Pal and Aurobindo Ghose. The Militant leaders called upon the people to non-
cooperate with the Government and boycott the Government schools and colleges, courts
and government offices. Their programme was “to make the administration under present
conditions impossible by an organised refusal to do anything which shall help either the
British commerce in the exploitation of the country of the British officialdom in the
administration of it unless and until the conditions are changed in the manner and to the
extent demanded by the people.” The question of Partition of Bengal got merged with the
question of India’s freedom. The Extremists called upon the people to offer sacrifices at
the altar of the Motherland. Chidambaram Pillai in Madras and Harisarvottan Rao and
other in Andhra were put behind the bars. Aurobindo Ghose was arrested and prosecuted.
There was a lot of discontentment and bitterness in the country.
In his whirlwind tour of the country, Tilak declared that the Moderates could not deliver
the goods and the people should look up to the Extremists for the liberation of their

180
Motherland. The repetition of the resolutions full of prayers to the Government could not
bring any result. The remedy was not petitions but boycott. After the Surat session in
1907, Tilak had no rest. Single-handed, he started a many-sided struggle and spread the
fire of patriotism in every nook and corner of he Bombay Presidency. He Went on tours
and collected a lot of money for the various national causes. He asked his audiences to
work for Swaraj and get ready for sufferings which along could bring Swaraj. His slogan
at the meetings was: “Swaraj is my birth-right: I will have it.”
The Government of India passed the Public Meetings Act, the Criminal Law
(Amendment) Act, The Seditious Meetings Act, 1907, The Explosive Substances Act,
1908, The Newspaper (Incitement to Offences) Act, 1908 and the Indian Press Act 1910
to take effective action against the Extremists. Several circulars and ordinances were
issued which had the effect of abrogating the right of free speech and criticism.
Processions, meetings and demonstrations were banned. Students and citizens were
prohibited from taking part in politics. The students who defied the orders were rusticated
from their schools and colleges. Many leaders were deported from Bengal alone. Tilak
was arrested, sentenced to imprisonment for six years and kept in Burma in “virtual
solitary confinement in prison cell”. Lala Lajpat Rai and Sardar Ajit Singh were arrested
in the Punjab and sent to Burma. Aurobindo Ghose was arrested and kept in jail for a year
awaiting his trial although acquitted by the court. Madan Lal Dhingra was hanged.
Bhupendra Nath Datta, editor of the Yugantar, was awarded a long sentence of
imprisonment. The Yugantar, The Sandhya and The Bande Mataram, were suppressed.
Police raids, house searches confiscations and espionage became the order of the day.
C.I.D. officers were let loose upon society. So great was the repression that even Lord
Morley had to ask Lord Minto to have more restraint.
As regards the achievements of the Extremists, they added a glorious chapter to the
history of the nationalist movement in India. They clarified their objective, taught people
self-confidence and self-reliance and prepared the social base of the movement to include
the lower middle classes, students, youth and women. New methods of political
organisation and new modes of waging political struggles were introduced. However, the
mass of the common people, the workers and the peasasnts, were still outside the
mainstream of national politics. As a result of the agitation by the Extremists, the
Partition of Bengal was annulled in 1911. That gave a new self-confidence and self-
assurance to the Indian nationalists. The aim of Swaraj was no longer considered as a
revolutionary demand. The shock of the World War I was required to complete the
British Government to announce in August 1917 that the policy of His Majesty’s
Government was the increasing association of Indians in every branch of the
administration and the gradual development of self-governing institutions with a view to
the progressive realisation of responsible Government in India.

181
Revolutionary and Terrorist Movement
Many factors were responsible for the rise and growth of the Revolutionary and terrorist
movement in India. The rising of 1857 had its effect on the future generations of India.
The sacrifices made by the Indians on that occasion gave inspiration to many to follow
their example. The spirit of revenge with which the rebels of 1857 were crushed, and
even innocent Indians were massacred by the British soldiers even after the failure of the
revolt, inflamed the minds of many Indians. There was a general awakening in the
country and the people started thinking in terms of ending the foreign rule at any cost
even if the use of force was necessary for that purpose. The timidity of the Moderates
exasperated the youth of India and they decided to take to violence to turn out the
foreigners from the country. The Indian press was instrumental in putting the Indian case
before the people and asked for action against British tyranny in the country. The minds
of the Indians were also affected by the large number of political assassinations in Europe
at the hands of the anarchists. The murderer of the Empress of Austria-Hungary is stated
to have declared: “Long live anarchy! Let there be only 200 such brave men as myself
and all the thrones of the world will be empty.” The effect of those murders on the youth
was bound to be profound. The unification of Germany and Italy, the defeat of Italy by
Abyssinia in 1896 and of Russia by Japan in 1905, the Nihilist movement in Russia and
the Young Turk movement in Turkey had their effect on the revolutionaries in India.
Many people in India were convinced that British rule in Indiacould not be ended by
constitutional methods and force had to be employed for that purpose. The
revolutionaries believed in the philosophy of bomb and pistol in one hand and the Gita in
the other.
Tilak played an important part in furthering the cause of revolutionary movement in
Maharashtra. At the Shivaji Coronation festival held on 12 June 1897, Tilak called upon
the people to “Rise above the Penal Code into the purified atmosphere of the sacred
Bhagavat Gita.” He justified the murder of Afzal Khan by Shivaji. When there was
famine in the Deccan, Tilak started a no-rent campaign and called upon the peasants not
to pay land revenue to the Government. When Mr. Rand, the Plague Commissioner of
Poona was murdered, Tilak was arrested and sentenced to 18 months’ rigorous
imprisonment. The statue of Queen Victoria was mutilated at Bombay. An attempt was
made to burn the Church Mission Hall. The Marathi press was revolutionary in tone. The
editors of many newspapers and magazines were arrested and sentenced. Tilak himself
was arrested, prosecuted and convicted and sentenced to transportation for 6 years in
1908. Ganesh Damodar Savarkar, the younger brother of V.D. Savarkar, was the head of
he revolutionary activities at Nasik. He was the founder of the Abhinav Bharat society. In
one of his poems, he wrote: “Take up the sword and destroy the Government because it is
foreign and aggressive.” He was prosecuted and sentenced to transportation for life with
forfeiture of property. Mr. Jackson, District Magistrate of Nasik, was shot dead on 21
December, 1909. The police rounded up 37 young-men, three of whom were hanged and

182
the rest were sentenced to varying terms of imprisonment. On 1 July 1909, Sir Curzon
Willie was shot dead by Madan Lal Dhingra in London.
The revolutionary movement was also strong in Bengal. On 23 December, 1907, Mr.
Allen, who was formerly the District Magistrate of Dacca, was shot in the back but the
injury did not prove fatal. On 30 April, 1908, Mrs. Kennedy and Miss Kennedy were
killed by a bomb thrown by Khudi Ram which was actually meant for Mr. Kingsford,
Presidency Magistrate. Khudi Ram was arrested, tried and hanged. In the Alipore
conspiracy case, searches were made by the police of Maniktala and other places. In May
1908, bombs, dynamite and cartridges were seized. Many persons were arrested, charged
and convicted and heavy punishments were inflicted on them.
The Punjab also played its part its part in the revolutionary movement. Sardar Ajit Singh,
a revolutionary of the Bharat Mata Society of Lahore, took an active part against the
Colonization Act which deprived the peasants of Lyallpur and other districts of the fruits
of the land which they had converted from barren areas into rich fields. There were
disturbances in Rawalpindi in May 1907 and many Arya Samaj leaders were arrested and
prosecuted. When in December 1912, Lord Hardings was being taken his A.D.C. In the
Delhi conspiracy case, 13 persons were arrested. Two of them were sentenced to 7 years’
imprisonment and four of them were hanged. When Avadh Behari was going to be
hanged, an Englishman asked him what his last wish was and his reply was:” The end of
the British rule”. When the Englishman advised him to die peacefully, he replied, “Peace
: I wish that a conflagration may break out in the country gutting the British rule. Let my
country emerge out of this fire like pure gold.”
The Ghadar Party was determined to wage war against the British in India and with that
object in view decided to sent arms and men to India to start a revolt with the help of
soldiers and local revolutionaries. Several thousand men volunteered to go back to India.
Millions of dollars were collected for that purpose. 21 February, 1915 was fixed for an
All-India revolt and vigorous preparations were made for that purpose. The All-India
revolts failed as the secret plan was revealed to the Government by one Kirpal Singh.
Many places were raided and bombs were recovered. Secret papers were also captured by
the Government. Most of the ring leaders fell into the hands of the police. The Ghadarites
were tried in 9 batches in the Lahore Conspiracy case and the supplementary cases. Out
of 291 sent up for trial, 42 were sentenced to death and hanged and 114 were transported
for life, 93 were imprisoned for varying terms. It is said that when Baghi Kartar Singh,
Pingale, Bhai Parmanand, Jagat Singh and other were awarded death sentence, all of them
began to dance. Those who were condemned to transportation for life cried out: “Give us
death:? “Reward us with hanging !” Baghi Kartar Singh thanked the President of the
Tribunal. The President was inclined to commute the death sentence of Baghi Kartar
Singh but the latter replied: “I prefer gallows to life sentence. I wish I were born again to
unfetter my Motherland. I shall be glad to be hanged every time I am reborn till my

183
country achieved independence.” Pingale was hanged on 16 November, 1915. The
Officer in charge told him: “I tried to give you as much time for life as I could. I kept
your turn last” The reply of Pingale was: “Then you have made a mistake. I have been
separated from my friends. They may lose their faith in me. Had you sent me earlier, I
would have got the privilege of arranging for their reception and comforts there. Oh, you
have deprived me of that good luck.” He was questioned about his last desire and his
reply was: “Kindly remove my chains so that I can offer prayers to my Mother with the
palms of my hands joined.” When the chains were taken off, He prayed aloud: “Lord you
know my heart’s desire. Our only prayer is that you fulfil the mission for which we have
so readily laid down our lives.”
The revolutionaries lived a life of sufferings, hardships, insults and humiliations at the
hands of the police and other agents of the Government. They believed that no weapons
could kill them and no fire can burn them. They were prepared in mind any body to
passthrough the severest ordeals. They were transported for life to the Andamans. Their
life was extremely difficult. Jail authorities invented all kinds of devices to make the
revolutionaries as miserable as they could. The prisoners were roughy handled at the time
of taking meals. Barbarous punishment were inflicted upon them to extort confession or
to convert them as approvers. Their hands were kept under the legs of the cost and police
constables sat on them. Sometimes they were wrapped in blankets and then mercilessly
beaten to avoid legal complications. Sometimes, they were made to stand on their legs for
days together with their hands tied with a chai nailed in the wall. Sometimes, they had to
war cross bars which were worse than the bar fetters because the prisoners under this
sentence could not bring their feet or legs close to each other and they had to walk, sit,
work and sleep with stretched-out feet and legs for weeks.
It is true that the revolutionaries failed to bring about the independence of India, but it
cannot be denied that they made their own contribution to the national cause. It is they
who set an example before the Indians by sacrificing their own lives. They taught the
people not by precept but by personal example. They taught them to face death and do
everything for the sake of their country. By their sacrifices, the revolutionaries created a
new spirit which helped the Indians later on to win their freedom. Their desperate deeds,
daring plans, cool action and indifference to death won for them a lasting place in the
memory of the nation. The impression which the revolutionaries left on the minds of the
people was very effective and great. They exhorted the people to live dedicated lives and
sacrifice their all for the liberation of the country. They suffered for their country but
desired no publicity. They were the heroes who left their footprints on the sands of time.

184
 (c) The Nationalist Movement and the Role of Mahatma Gandhi

India and World War I (1914-18)

When World War I started in 1914, there was great enthusiasm in the country. The people
were willing to serve the Government in every possible way. There was an increasing
demand for Indian troops outside India. Indian troops fought through the long campaigns
of Macedonia and German East Africa. They played an important part in the Iraq
campaign leading to the capture of Baghdad in 1917. They were in the Allied army which
took Jerusalem in 1917. All this involved a great effort in India itself. Eight lakhs of men
were recruited for the fighting forces together with four lakhs of non-combatants. This
resulted in a great expansion in the military machine and a stronger feeling of self-
confidence all-around. The Indians began to realise that they could achieve great things.
The World War I gave a great stimulus to industrial development in India. Indian mill-
owners were busy turning out materials for the defence of the British Empire. The active
interest of the industrial and merchant class in politics strengthened the financial base of
the nationalist agitation and the Congress became a powerful organisation. The War was
also a great education to the masses. The Indian soldiers who fought in foreign countries
were drawn from the rural areas. When they came back home after the War, they told
their relations and friends the thrilling stories of their experiences. As a result of World
War I, the spirit of nationalism percolated down to all classes including the poor masses.
The attitude of India towards Europe and its people was alerted radically and
permanently. The Indians shed the feeling that the Europeans were superior to them in
any way. The first war casualty in India was the idea of Western superiority. The Russian
Revolution of 1917 Also had a profound influence on the minds of the Indians. They felt
that if the people of Russia could overthrow an imperialist regime, the same could be
done by them in their own country. The Fourteen Points of President Wilson aroused new
hopes among the Indians. They also demanded the rights of national freedom and self-
determination of peoples. The Indians demanded self-Government in the name of the
fundamental principles accepted by the Allied Powers.

The Home Rule Movement

When Great Britain was involved in the World War, Indian leaders like Tilak and Annie
Besant decided to put new life in the national movement in the country. On 28 April
1916, the Indian Home Rule League was set up by Tilak with its headquarters at Poona.
The object of this League was to “attain Home Rule or self-Government” within the
British Empire by all constitutional means and to educate and organise public opinion in
the country towards the attainment of the same.” A similar Home Rule League was

185
founded by Annie Besant on 15 September, 1916 with its headquarters at Adyar near
Madras.
The advocates of the Home Rule Movement believed in constitutional methods and were
opposed to violence and revolutionary agitation. They had no desire to embarrass the
Government which was fighting against Germany and Austria-Hungary. They were
prepared to offer their cooperation to the British Government so that it could win the
War. However, they believed that the grant of Home Rule to India was in the Interests of
the British Empire. In 1917, the two Home Rule Leagues of Tilak and Annie Besant
worked in cooperation with each other. Tilak confined his activities to the Bombay
Presidency and the Central Provinces, and the rest of India was left to Annie Besant. The
Branches of the Home Rule Leagues were set up all over the country and there was a
popular demand for Home Rule. Tilak went on a whirlwind tour of the country in 1916
and appealed to the people to unite under the banner of the Home Rule League. Annie
Besant also toured the country and created a lot of enthusiasm among the people for the
national cause. The Government took action both against Tilak and Annie Besant. As a
token of the appreciation for her sufferings in the cause of India’s independence Annie
Besant was elected President and she presided over the Congress session held in Calcutta
in 1917.
The view of Dr. S. R. Mehrotra is that the Home Rule Leagues created a significant
impact on the national movement in India. For the first time, agitation was aroused on a
nation-wide scale and a network of political committees covered much of India. They
imparted a sense of impatience to the national movement as a whole. They introduced a
new style of political agitation in India and mobilised the support of new regions and
sections of the population.

Declaration of 20 August 1917

It was during World War I that Mr. Montagu became the Secretary of State for India. He
was a great friend of India and had sympathised with the aspirations of her people. He
brought a new approach to the Indian problem. When the fortunes of the Allied Powers
were at their lowest ebb, he made the following declaration on behalf of His Majesty’s
Government on 20 August, 1917. “The policy of His Majesty’s Government with which
the Government of India are in complete accord, is the increasing association of Indians
in every branch of the administration and the gradual development of self-governing
institutions with a view to the progressive realisation of responsible Government in India
as an integral part of the British Empire. They have decided that substantial steps in this
direction should be taken as soon as possible, and that it is of the highest importance as a
preliminary to considering what these steps should be that there should be a free and
informal exchange of opinion between those in authority at Home and In India. His
Majesty’s Government accordingly decided, with His Majestry’s approval, that I should
accept the viccroy’s invitation to proceed to India to discuss these matters with the

186
viceroy and the Government of India, to consider with the Viceroy the views of the local
Governments and to receive with him the suggestions of representative bodies and
others.”
Mr. Montagu reached Bombay on 10 November, 1917 at the head of a delegation. He
visited different part of India. He met various delegations and on 22 April, 1918 a joint
report was signed by Mr. Montagu and Lord Chelmsford. The various recommendations
made in the report were thoroughly considered and ultimately and Government of India
Bill was passed by Parliament on 18 December, 1919 and received the assent of the King
on 23 December, 1919.
The British Government followed a policy of appeasement and repression. To appease
the nationalists, the Government of India Act, 1919 was passed. However, Indian
nationalism was not satisfied by such limited and niggardly reforms. India was not
willing to be satisfied with the shadow of power and the Montford proposals conceded
nothing beyond it. The Indian national Congress met in a special session at Bombay in
August 1918 and condemned the Montford proposals as “inadequate, unsatisfactory and
disappointing”. Some of the Congress leaders led by Surendranath Banerjee were keen on
accepting the proposals and they left the Indian National Congress and formed the Indian
Liberal Federation. They came to be known as Liberals and though their ranks included
such brilliant and outstanding personalities as Tej Bahadur Sapru and M.R. Jayakar. They
however played rather a minor role in Indian politics thereafter. They were cut off from
the main national stream. The young nationalists who were not quite active on the Indian
political scene tended to look upon them with distrust, if not contempt. About the
Liberals, Percival Spear, writes, “They gradually dissolved into a number of generals
without followers and finally became a group of elder statesmen of distinction. They
remained fruitful of ideas as in the case of Sir Tej Bahadur Sapru. They were influential
in private and useful in public as go-between Government and Congress in times of
difficulty. But they could no longer lead or command. They were the political harcarahs
of modern India”.
If on the one hand, the British Government conceded reforms, the stick of repression was
also prominently held in the other. Throughout the War, arrests and various forms of
repression like Lathi charges, police firings etc. were employed with unabated vigour
against the revolutionary nationalists. The Government now decided to arm itself with
extra-constitutional powers to be able to suppress those nationalists who refused to be
appeased. In 1919 were passed the Rowlatt Acts although every non-official Indian
member of the Imperial Legislative Council voted against them. Those Acts did away
with the normal legal procedure regarding political cases and authorised the government
to imprison people charged with political offence without trial and try political cases
without juries.

187
Gandhiji assumes leadership
To the Indian public, the Rowlatt Acts came like a bolt from the blue. It was like a hungry
man being offered stones to eat. Instead of democratic progress had come repressive
legislation. A wave of unrest spread all over India. There was great agitation against the
Acts. At this time, Shri M.K. Gandhi emerged as a new leader and the last phase of the
Indian National Movement began. Gandhiji who had so far refrained from political
activity now plunged himself into the fray with a zeal, determination and fearlessness
which only a man of great inner spiritual strength could do. Before long, Gandhiji took
command of the national struggle and gave it a new strength, a new dimension and a new
sense of direction. National awareness was no longer confined to the intelligentsia. It was
to acquire a broader and wider base under his stewardship. Gandhiji attracted more and
more of his followers from the ranks of the peasant and the workers. This struggle against
the British rule truly assumed a national character.
Gandhiji was born on 2 October 1869 at Porbandar in Gujarat. After qualifying for the
Bar in England in 1891, he returned to India and set up practice of law at Rajkot and later
at Bombay. In 1892, he went to South Africa in connection with the work of some private
party. During his stay in South Africa, he protested against the discriminatory treatment
given to the Indians. He formed the National Indian Congress and suffered imprisonment.
He also protested against the Asiatic Act and the Transvaal Immigration Act and started
his non-violent Civil Disobedience movement. The result of the efforts of Gandhiji was
that the Government of South Africa repealed most of the obnoxious Acts against the
Indians. In 1914, Gandhiji came to India. The next four years he spent in studying the
Indian situation. In 1917, Gandhiji took up the cause of the peasants of Champaran in
Bihar who were bound by law to grow indigo on 3/20 parts of their land and send the
same to the British planters at prices fixed by them. Gandhiji too up their cause and
ultimately succeeded in removing their grievances. The Champaran mission helped the
cause of nationalism. It infused into the minds of the downtrodden peasants of
Champaran mission helped the cause of nationalism. It infused into the minds of the
downtrodden peasants of Champaran a spirit of awakening which was indispensable for
the growth of nationalism.
The mill-workers of Ahmedabad went on a strike against the mill-owners who refused to
pay them higher wages. As a result to the intervention of Mahatma Gandhi, the
millowners agreed to raise the wages by 35%. In the Kaira District, The crops failed in
1918 but the officers insisted on collection of full land revenue. Gandhiji organised the
peasants to offer Satyagraha. They refused to pay land revenue and were prepared to
suffer. The Government was ultimately forced to surrender. These experiments in
Satyagraha brought Gandhiji into close contact with the masses, the peasants in rural
areas and workers in urban areas.

188
The indignation of Mahatma Gandhi was aroused by the Rowlatt Acts. Mahatma Gandhi
asked the people to disobey the Acts and court imprisonment. This call for Satyagraha
raised the pitch of the nationalist movement to a new and higher level. The Indians were
now prepared to act and did act. The era of passive protests passed away. The people now
possessed a high sense of national elation and self-confidence. Gandhiji called upon the
educated Indian and the nationalists to go to the villages where real India lived and
awaken the masses to realise their latent strength. The symbol of this new awakened out-
look was to be the use of Khadi. The political outlook of Mahatma Gandhiwas expressed
in the following words: “I shall work for an India in which the poorest shall feel that it is
their country in whose making they have an effective voice, an India in which there shall
be no high class and low class of people, an India in which all communities shall live in
perfect harmony There can be no room in such an India for the curse of untouchability.
Women will enjoy the same rights as men. This is the India of my dreams.”
People from all walks of life responded whole-heartedly to the appeal of Mahatma
Gandhi. The months of March and April 1919 witnessed huge public demonstrations. The
Hindus and Muslims were united and they raised common slogans. The entire country
was electrified. The Indians were not prepared to be ruled by foreigners whatever the
consequences. However, the Government was equally determined to suppress the new
mass agitation. It declared public meetings illegal. It lathi-charged unarmed crowds and
even opened fore on demonstrations in Bombay, Calcutta, Delhi and other cities.
Gandhiji asked the people to observe a total hartal on 6 April, 1919. Public response was
unprecedented. This unnerved the alien bureaucracy, and its culmination was the
Jallianwala Bagh tragedy on 13 April 1919.

Jallianwala Bagh Tragedy (1919)

At this time, great atrocities were committed in the Punjab. Sir Michael O’Dwyer,
Lieutenant-Governor of the Punjab, was known as the iron man of the Punjab. He had no
faith in political reforms and consequently had no sympathy with the political agitators.
He refused permission to Tilak and B.C. Pal to enter the Punjab. The methods adopted by
him to raise war loans and to find recruits for war were very often unauthorised and
oppressive. When the agitation against the Rowlatt Acts started in India, Sir Michael give
the warning to the people of the Punjab on 7 April, 1919 that strong action will be taken
against all those who took part in the agitation against the Rowlatt Acts. Amritsar had
observed hartal peacefully both on 30 March and 4 April. However, on 9 April, 1919, the
Government of the Punjab passed orders for the deportation of Dr. Satya Pal and Dr.
Kitchlew and their internment at Dharmsala under the Defence of India Act. On 10 April,
1919, they were removed by the police from Amritsar. When the people came to know of
it, complete hartal was declared in the city. The people marched in a procession to the
residence of the Deputy Commissioner to demand the release of their leaders. They had
no sticks or lathies with them. However, they were checked by the police at the railway

189
level-crossing and there was firing. This infuriated the mob and there was wholesale
burning of whatever fell in their way. The Europeans were assaulted. Buildings were
burnt and godowns were looted. When the troop appeared in the city, the mob
disappeared. On 11 April 1919, the people were allowed to arrange for the disposal of the
dead bodies.
On 12 April, 1919, a proclamation was issued by General Dyer who had taken charge of
the troops the day before, that no meetings or gatherings of the people were to be held.
However, no steps were taken to bring the Proclamation to the notice of the people living
in various localities of the city. The result was that it was announced on 12 April evening
that there would be a public meeting on 13 April, 1919 at 4.30 P.M. in the Jallianwala
Bagh. Neither General Dyer nor other authorities took any action to stop the meeting
which started at the right time. About 6,000 to 10,000 people were present in the meeting.
All of them were practically unarmed and defenceless. The Jallianwala Bagh is closed
practically on all sides by walls except one entrance. General Dyer entered the
Jallianwala Bagh with armoured cars and troops. Without giving any warning to the
people to dispcrse, he ordered the troops to fire and they continued to do so till the whole
of the ammunition at their disposal was exhausted. Hundreds of people were killed. The
contention of General Dyer was that he wanted to teach the people a lesson so that they
might not laugh at him. He would have fired and fired longer, he said, if he had the
required ammunition. He had fired only 1600 rounds because his ammunition had run
out. The regime of Dyer imposed some unthinkable punishments. The water and electric
supply of Amritsar were cut off. Public flogging was common but the worst was the
“Crawling Order”.
The administration of Martial Law was more intensive at Lahor than elsewhere. The
curfew order was enforced and the people who went out after 8 P.M. were liable to be
shot, flogged, fined or imprisoned or otherwise punished. School and college students
were flogged for their failure to bow before the Union Jack. There was bombing at
Gujranwala in the Punjab. There was a storm of protest all over the country against the
atrocities committed in the Punjab. Sir Rabindranath Tagore gave up his knighthood
which had been conferred on him by the Government of India. In his letter addressed to
the Viceroy, Tagore wrote. “The accounts of the insults and suffering undergone by our
brothers in the Punjab have trickled through the gagged silence reaching every corner of
India and the universal agony of indignation aroused in the hearts of our people have
been ignored by our rulers possibly congratulating themselves for imparting what they
imagine salutary lessons. Knowing that our appeals have been in vain and that the passion
of vengeance is blinding the noble vision of statesmanship in our Government, which
could so easily afford to be magnanimous as befitting its physical strength and moral
traditions, the very least I can do is to take all consequence on myself in giving voice to
the protest of the millions of my countrymen suppressed into a dumb anguish of terror.
The time has come when badges of honour make our shame glaring in their incongruous

190
context by humiliation and I, for my part, wish to stand shorn of all special distinction by
the side of those of my countrymen who, for their so-called insignificance, are liable to
suffer a degradation not fit for human beings, and these are the reason which have
painfully compelled me to ask Your Excellency with due deference and regret, to release
me of my title of knighthood.”

The Khilafat Movement

A new stream joined the nationalist movement and this was entry of the Muslims. The
younger generation of educated Muslims had become increasingly restive. The agitation
against the Rowlatt Acts had affected all the Indians alike and had brought both the
Hindus and the Muslims into the mainstream of the nationalist movement. For example,
at Amritsar, the Hindus and Muslims were handcuffed together and were made to crawl
together and drink together. In that atmosphere, the Khilafat agitation started. For some
time at least, this movement appeared to be even more radical that the Indian National
Congress.
The Muslims of India did not approve of the partition of Turkey by the Allies. They
desired that the Arab parts of the Turkish Empire which contained all the Holy Places of
the Muslims, should remain under the direct control of the Turkish ruler who was also the
Khalifa (Caliph) or the religious head of the Muslims all over the world. A Khilafat
Committee under the leadership of the Ali Brothers (Muhammad Ali and Shaukat Ali),
Maulana Abdul Kalam Azad and others was formed to organise a country-wide agitation.
The All-India Khilafat Conference held in November 1919 threatened to withdraw all
cooperation from the Government if their demands were not met. The Congress leaders,
headed by Tilak and Mahatma Gandhi, gave full support to the Khilafat agitation. The
looked upon the agitation as a grand opportunity for uniting Hindus and Mohammadans
as would not arise in a hundred years”. Mahatma Gandhi, in particular, threw his full
weight behind the agitation. He declared that he would start non-cooperation movement if
the terms of peace with Turkey were not satisfactory. In its turn, the All-India Khilafat
Committee adopted Gandhiji’s non-cooperation programme and launched a Non-
Cooperation movement in August 1920.

Non-Cooperation Movement
Under the leadership of Mahatma Gandhi, the Indian National Congress decided in 1920
to start the Non-Cooperation Movement. It was truly a revolutionary step. It was for the
first time that the Congress decided to follow a policy of direct action. Many factors were
responsible for this change. Mahatma Gandhi had so far believed in the Justice and fair
play of the British Government. He had given his full cooperation to the Government
during the World War I in spite of opposition from men like Tilak. However, the tragedy
of the Jallianwala Bagh, the Martial Law in the Punjab and the findings of the Hunter
Committee destroyed his faith in the good sense of the Englishmen. He felt that the old

191
methods must be given up. After the withdrawal of the Moderates, the Extremists were in
complete control of the Congress and it was possible for the Congress to adopt a
revolutionary programme. The terms of the Treaty of Sevres between Turkey and the
Allies were very severe and were resented by the Muslims of India. The Muslims tried to
persuade the British Government to show leniency towards Turkey but they got a flat
refusal. The Muslims started the Khilafat movement and Mahatma Gandhi was sure of
Muslim support if the Congress started the Non-Cooperation movement.
A special session of the Congress was held at Calcutta in September 1920 under the
Presidentship of Lala Lajpat Rai and Mahatma Gandhi himself moved the Non-
Cooperation resolution in which he promised to get Swaraj in one year if his conditions
were accepted. There was a lot of opposition, but the resolution was carried by a majority
of 1885 against 1873. The programme of the non-cooperation movement was clearly
explained in the non-cooperation resolution. It involved the surrender of titles and
honorary offices and resignations from nominated posts in the local bodies. The non-
cooperators were not to attend Government levies, Darbars and other official and semi-
official functions held by the Government officials or in their honour. They were to
withdraw their children gradually from schools and colleges and establish national
schools and colleges. They were to boycott gradually the courts set up by the Government
of India in the country and establish private arbitration courts. They were not to join the
army as recruits for service in Mesopotamia. They were not to stand for election to the
legislatures and they were also not to vote. They were to use Swadeshi cloth. Hand-
spinning and hand-weaving were to be encouraged. Untouchability was to be removed as
there could be no Swaraj without this reform. Ahimsa or non-violence was to be strictly
observed by non-cooperators. They were not to give up Satya or truth under any
circumstances. The non-cooperators resolution passed at Calcutta was ratified at the
regular annual session of the Congress held at Nagpur in December 1920. There was a
record number of delegates (14,582) including 1050 Muslims and 169 women. In the
Congress Pandal, there was an atmosphere of patriotism, surging zeal and enthusiasm and
hopes and aspirations.
The Non-Cooperation movement captured the imagination of the people. Both the Hindu
and Muslims participated in it. There was a wholesale burning of foreign goods. Many
students left their schools and colleges and the Congress set up national educational
institutions at very many places. Forty lakhs of volunteers were enrolled by the Congress.
Twenty thousand Charkhas were manufactured. The People started deciding their
disputes by means of arbitration. Mahatma Gandhi gave up the title of Kaisar-i-Hind and
his example was followed by others.
The Government of India decided to suppress the movement with all the force at its
command. Sections 108 and 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were promulgated at
important centres of the agitation. Orders were passed restricting the entry of Congress

192
leaders at different places. The provisions of the Seditious Meetings Act were enforced at
Lahore. There were firings at different places. Ali Brothers were arrested. Mahatma
Gandhi was so much agitated on account of the repressive policy of the Government that
he asked the Congress Working Committee to authorise each Provincial Congress
Committee to undertake on its own responsibility the civil disobedience campaign
including the non-payment of taxes.
Mahatma Gandhi was convinced that the only way to make the Government see reason
was to start the Civil Disobedience movement. He decided o start the movement in
Bardoli (in Gujarat). The Congress Working Committee asked the people of India to
cooperate with the people of Bardoli. On February 1, 1922, Mahatma Gandhi wrote a
letter to the viceroy in which he gave a notice of 7 days to start the Civil Disobedience
Movement. The Viceroy rejected the demands of Mahatma Gandhi and justified the
policy of the Government. Mahatma Gandhi was left with no alternative but to launch the
Civil Disobedience Movement. Unfortunately, at this time, the tragedy of Chauri Chaura
occurred which changed the course of Indian history. What actually happened was that on
February 1, 1922 a mob of 3,000 persons killed 25 policemen and one inspector. This was
too much for Mahatma Gandhi who stood for complete non-violence. The result was that
Mahatma Gandhi gave orders for the suspension of the non-cooperation movement at
once. The Government was not satisfied with the action of Mahatma Gandhi and the
Congress. It was feared that Mahatma Gandhi was out for a bigger trouble and
consequently he was arrested on 13 March 1922. His trial began at Ahmedabad, and he
pleaded guilty. He was sentenced to 6 years’ imprisonment.
The action of Mahatma Gandhi suspending the movement was severely criticised.
According to Dr. Pattabhi Sitaramayya, “Long letters were written from behind the bars
by Pandit Motilal Nehru and Lala Lajpat Rai. They took Gandhi to task for punishing the
whole country for the sins of a place’. Subhas Chandra Bose, “To sound the order of
retreat just when public enthusiasm was reaching the boiling point was nothing short of a
national calamity”. According to C.R. Das, “The Mahatma opens a campaign in a
brilliant fashion, he works it up with skill, he moves from success till he reaches the
zenith of his campaign but after that he loses his nerve and begins to falter.” However,
Jawaharlal Nehru Justified the action of Mahatma Gandhi on the ground of practical
politics. There was violence and indiscipline at various places.
The Non-Cooperation Movement achieved a lot. The whole countryside was full of
enthusiasm and excitement. Thousands of people collected to attend the meetings
addressed by the leaders. The movement added to the self-reliance of the people. They
were no more afraid of the strength of the British Government. The prisons lost their
terror and became places of pilgrimage. Swadeshi became popular. The Congress became
a mass movement. Those who participated in the movement came from every stratum of
the Indian society.

193
The view of Dr. R.C.Mazumdar is that the most outstanding feature of the movement was
the willingness and ability of the people in general to endure hardships and punishments
inflicted by the Government. It is true that the movement collapsed but the memory of its
greatness survived and was destined to inspire the nation to launch a more arduous
campaign. The movement served as a baptism of fire which initiate the people to a new
faith and new hope and inspired them with a new confidence in their power to fight for
freedom. The Congress was no longer a deliberative assembly but an organised fighting
party pledged to revolution.

The Swarajist party

After the withdrawal of the Non-Cooperation Movement, disintegration and dis-
organisation set in. Enthusiasm declined and differences emerged in the rank of the
leaders. A new lead came from C.R. Das and Motilal Nehru who believed that the old
political issues were dead and therefore the national movement should work in new
directions. They advocated that the members of the Indian National Congress should
enter the Legislative Councils in order to obstruct their working and to expose their
inadequacy and to stimulate wider public interest in matters of national and constitutional
development. Another group of Congress leaders headed by Dr. Ansari, Rajendra Prasad
and Vallabhbhai Pater opposed the change and suggested that the Indian National
Congress should concentrate more on its “constructive programme” of spinning,
temperance and removal of untouchability while still pursuing the programme of non-
cooperation.
A meeting of the All-India Congress Committee was held at Calcutta in November 1922
and in spite of lengthy debates, no decision was made. At the annual session of the
Congress held at Gaya in December 1922, the “no-changers” won a victory and the
programme of Council-entry was rejected. C.R. Das announced his decision to form the
Swarajist Party. The object of the new Party was to wreck the Government of India Act,
1919 from within the Councils. In March 1923, the first Conference of the Swarajist Party
was held at Allahabad at the residence of Motilal Nehru and the future programme of the
Party was decided. The Keynote of the programme was obstructionism. Its members were
to contest elections on the issue of the redress of the wrongs done by the British
bureaucracy, to oppose every measure of the Government and to throw out all laws
proposed by the British Government. The view of the Swarajitsts was that the seats in the
Legislatures must be captured so that they did not fall into the hands of undesirable
persons who were tools in the hands of the bureaucracy in India. The Swarajist leaders
declared that outside the Councils, they would cooperate with the constructive
programme of the Congress under the leadership of Mahatma Gandhi and join Civil
Disobedience Movement if and when launched by him.
The Swarajist Party fought the elections in 1923 and won 42 seats out of the 101 elected
seats in the Central Legislative Assembly. It also won a majority in the Legislative

194
Council of the Central Provinces. It was the dominant party in Bengal. It also won good
support in U.P. and Bengal.
The Swarajist Party in the Central Assembly under the leadership of Motilal Nehru was
able to command a working majority by winning over the support of the Nationalist party
and a few other members. On 18 February, 1924, the Swarajist Party was able to get a
resolution passed by which the Government was requested to establish full responsible
Government in India. A demand was also made that a Round Table Conference
consisting of the representatives of India should be called at an early date to frame a
constitution for India. The appointment of the Muddiman Committee was the result of a
resolution of the Swarajist Party. Some of the demands in the budget of 1924-25 were
rejected by the Central Assembly as a result of the efforts of the Swarajist Party. The
Assembly also refused to allow the Government to introduce the entire Finance Bill. In
February Bill. In February 1925, V.J. Patel introduced a Bill asking for the repeal of
certain laws and with the Exception of one, the Bill was passed. A resolution was passed
demanding the release of certain political prisoners. The Swarajists resorted to walk-outs
as a mark of protest against the policy of the Government. What was done in the Central
Assembly was also done in those Provincial Legislatures where the Swarajists had some
influence.
Inspite of opposition by the Swarajist Party, the work of the Government continued as
usual. This forced the Swarajist Party to reconsider its original policy of “undiluted
opposition”. This was particularly so after the death of C.R. Das in 1925. V.J. Patel was
elected the Speaker of the Central Assembly.
However, differences arose among the members of the Swarajist Party. Efforts made to
arrive at some compromise failed. General elections were held in November 1926. The
Swarajist Party was able to improve its position but the members of the Nationalist Party
lost heavily. As other parties came into the field, the position of the Swarajist Party was
not strong anywhere and consequently it became difficult for it to follow successfully the
policy of “continuous, constant and uniform obstruction”. Motilal Nehru was left alone.
There was a general feeling among the congressmen that the policy of consistent and
persistent obstruction was not doing any good to the country. Slowly, the Swarajist Party
became weak and ultimately disappeared from the scene.
The view of Dr. R.C. Mazumdar is that the Swarajist Party rendered a signal service to
the country. For the first time, the Legislative Assembly wore the appearance of a truly
national assembly where national grievances were fully voiced, national aims and
aspirations expressed without any reservation and the real character of the British rule
exposed. The British autocracy and Indian bureaucracy were exposed to the whole world.
H.N. Brailsford writes, “To my thinking the tactics of obstruction were justified, for they
convinced even the British conservatives that the system of dyarchy was unworkable.”

195
Rise of Communalism
The worst aspect of the Indian political scene at this time was the rapid growth of
Communalism in the country. The failure of the Khilafat and the Non-Cooperation
movements had demoralised the people. Their frustration took the form of frequent
communal riots. The Muslim League and the Hindu Maha Sabha became active. Even the
Swarajist party was split by communalism. While C.R. Das and Motilal Nehru were
staunch secularists, leaders like Madan Mohan Malaviya, Lala Lajpat Rai and N.C.
Kelkar at times adopted postures which seemed communal to many. Gandhiji took 21
days’ fast against communal riots but did not succeed much in containing communal
frenzy and madness. The basis of the spread of communalism at this time was mostly the
petty struggle between the Hindu and Muslim middle class for government jobs and seats
is the councils. The elections to the Councils were according to separate electorates and
voting rights were confined to urban and rural upper classes and the educated persons to
whom appeals of religion and communalism were happy and convenient instruments for
catching the votes of the Muslim electorate.

The Simon Commission

In November 1927, the British Government announced appointment of the Indian
Statutory Commission, popularly known as the Simon Commission which was to go into
the question of further constitutional reforms. All the members of the Commission were
Englishmen. This announcement led to an India-wide protest. What angered all the
sections of the population was the non-inclusion of Indians in it and the underlying
assumption that Englishmen alone were to decide the political future of India. The Indian
National Congress resolved to boycott the Commission in every way. This example was
followed by the Muslim League (except for its wing led by Sir Mohammad Shafi) and the
Hindu Mahasabha.
When the Simon Commission arrived in India, it was every where greeted with black flag
demonstration and hartals and slogans of “Simon go back”, even when the Government
had used all its machinery of repression to suppress popular opposition. At Lahore, Lala
Lajpat Rai was beaten with a lathi and he later on died on those injuries. At Allahabad,
Jawaharlal Nehru and Pandit Govind Ballabh Pant were given a beating.
The Simon Commission incited a strong sense of revulsion in the Indian public. The
publication of its Report in May 1930 also aroused hostile response. Its recommendations
were denounced by all and sundry. Even a Liberal like Sir Sivaswami Aiyer suggested
that the Report “should be palaced on a scrap-heap”.

The Nehru Report

The appointment of an all-White Statutory Commission was a challenge for the
politically conscious and articulate Indians. At least for a while, all political differences

196
were sunk. All-Parties Conferences was held at Delhi in 1928. The challenge of drafting a
Constitution was seriously taken up when it appointed the Nehru Committee to draft a
Constitution for India. The deliberations resulted in the famous Nehru Report which
contained the framework of the Constitution for a free India. However, nothing came out
of it as the Report was opposed by Mr. M.A. Jinnah.

The Civil Disobedience Movement (1930-34)

At the Calcutta session of the Congress held in 1928, it was intended to pass a resolution
declaring complete independence as the goal of India. However, Mahatma Gandhi
intervened, and Dominion Status was declared to be the goal of India. He also gave the
assurance that he himself would lead the movement for independence if by the end 1929
the British Government did not confer Dominion Status on India.
When the Congress leaders met n the banks of the river Ravi, near Lahore, in 1929, they
were disappointed over the attitude of the British Government. Leaders like Jawaharlal
Nehru and Subhas Chandra Bose asked for a bold action against the Government.
Jawaharlal Nehru called upon the leaders assembled there to take strong action. “Taking
of high stakes and going through great dangers were the only way to achieve great
things”. He declared that complete independence should be the goal of the Congress.
Mahatma Gandhi approved of the goal, but he did not like to precipitate matters. A
resolution was passed that the word Swaraj in the Congress Constitution means
“complete independence.” All Congressmen taking part in the national movement were
asked not to take part, directly or indirectly in future elections and the sitting members
were asked to resign their seats. All India Congress Committee was authorised to launch
a programme of civil disobedience including the non-payment of taxes. At midnight of 31
December 1929, the tricolour flag of independence was hoisted on the banks of the river
Ravi by the Congress President, Jawaharlal Nehru.
26 January 1930 was declared Independence Day and a pledge was taken by the people of
India on that date and the same was repeated year after year. From 14 to 16, the members
of the Congress Working Committee met at Sabarmati Ashram and vested Mahatma
Gandhi with full powers to launch Civil Disobedience Movement “at a time and place of
his choice”. On 27 February, the plan of the agitation was announced, and Mahatma
Gandhi declared that he would first defy the salt laws along with 78 members of his
Ashram. On 2 March 1930, Mahatma Gandhi wrote to the Viceroy in which he gave his
own assessment of the situation in the country and put forward his programme to ease the
situation. He made it clear that if his suggestions were not accepted, he would start the
Civil Disobedience Movement. On 12 March 1930, accompanied by 78 inmates of the
Sabarmati Ashram, Mahatma Gandhi started on his march 240 miles to the sea-coast at
Dandi. Huge crowds gathered at the Ashram to see them off. Gandhiji hoped that he
would not return to the Ashram till Swaraj was won. His march assumed the character of
a Padayatra with the object of achieving Purna Swaraj for India. Prayers were held all

197
over India for the success of the mission of Mahatma Gandhi and the people watched
with great interest the progress of the march. Gandhiji reached Dandi on 5 April 1930 and
broke the salt laws on 6 April. He called upon the people to celebrate the week as the
national week and defy the salt laws and picket liquor shops, opium dens and the shops of
foreign cloth dealers. He also appealed to the people to leave the Government schools,
colleges and services. There was a favourable response from the people. Public meetings
were held will over the country. Hundreds of Government servants left their jobs. Many
legislators resigned their seats and hundreds of peoples violated the short laws. Liquor
shops were boycotted. The peasants refused to pay taxes and debts. The country appeared
to be in open revolt.
The Government followed a policy of repression to suppress the movement. Even before
the movement was actually started, thousands of Congress workers were arrested and put
in jails. Subhas Chandra Bose was sentenced to one year’s rigorous imprisonment. On 16
April 1930, Jawaharlal Nehru was arrested and imprisoned. He was followed by
thousands of others. Police firing, lathi charges and arrests became the order of the day.
Even women were not spared. From Delhi alone, about 1600 women were arrested. On
23 April, 1930, the Bengal Ordinance was promulgated and the life of the freedom
fighters was made very hard. The Press Act of 1910 was strictly enforced, and many
restrictions were put on the newspapers. Many newspapers and magazines stopped their
publication. Civilian property was destroyed. Innocent men and women were beaten up.
Prisoners were starved and suffocated. Hundreds of men and women were killed as a
result of police firing.
Mahatma Gandhi was arrested on 5 May 1930 and his place was taken by Abbas Tyabji
who was also arrested. He was succeeded by Sarojini Naidu. Demonstrations were
organised throughout India as a protest against Gandhiji’s arrest. In Bombay, riots broke
out. In Madras, police beating was indiscriminate. The boycott of British goods was the
highest in Bengal, Bihar and Orissa. The peasants and Zamindars of U.P. were asked to
withhold all payments of revenue. In the Central Provinces, satyagraha was launched
against forest taxes. In the Midnapur District of Bengal, Gorkha troops and punitive
police started reign of terror.
When the Civil Disobedience Movement was going on, the first Round Table Conference
was held in London from 12 November 1930 to 19 January, 1931. Not much was done at
the Conference as no representative of the Congress was in it. Prime Minister Remsay
Mac Donald stated at the end of the Conference that steps would be taken to secure the
cooperation of the Congress.
There was a feeling in the Government circles that there was no prospect of the
successful working of the new reforms unless the Congress was willing to work them. On
25 January 1931, Lord Irwin appealed to the people of India to consider the statement of
the British Prime Minister. He declared that Mahatma Gandhi and all other members of

198
the Congress Working Committee would be released to consider the matter “freely and
fearlessly”. There were negotiations between Lord Irwin and Mahatma Gandhi and on 6
March 1931, the Gandhi-Irwin Pact was signed. Both the Congress and the Government
were required to do certain things. The Government of India was to make concessions
and the Congress was to withdraw the Civil Disobedience Movement. The Government
was to take steps for the participation of the representatives of the Congress at the Second
Round Table Conference.
The spirit in which the Gandhi-Irwin Pact was signed did not last long. Inspite of protests
from all quarters, the government carried out the execution of Sardar Bhagat Singh, Sukh
Dev and Raj Guru on 23 March, 1931. On 18 April, 1931, Lord Irwin was succeeded by
Lord Willingdon. The new Viceroy had no intention to abide by the terms of the Pact. In
the United Provinces, the armed police and magistracy terrorised and harassed the people.
The houses of the Congress workers were raided. The Congress flag was burnt and
women were insulted. The holding of public meetings was prohibited and those who
defied the law were prosecuted. The confiscated property of the peasants was restored
with great difficult in Gujarat. Congressmen were imprisoned without trial in Bengal.
Legal practitioners were required to give undertakings. Prisoners were not released in
Bombay. Peaceful picketing was not allowed. Many students were rusticated from
schools and colleges. There were similar violations of the Pact in Madras and Delhi.
Mahatma Gandhi brough those violations of the Pact to the notice of the Government but
there was no response. However, Mahatma Gandhi went to attend the Second Round
Table Conference held in London in 1931.
Mahatma Gandhi attended the Conference as the sole representative of the Congress.
However, there was a complete deadlock on the question of representation of minorities.
Mr. Jinnah, the Agha Khan and Dr. Ambedkar were not wiling to come to a settlement
with Mahatma Gandhi. Mahatma Gandhi left the Conference utterly disgusted and came
back to India on 28 December, 1931. On 29 December, he sent a telegram to the Viceroy
in which he expressed his concern over the happenings in the country. In reply, the
Government justified its stand. The Viceroy also refused to grant an interview to
Mahatma Gandhi.
On 4 January, 1932, the Government of India issued four Ordinances, viz., The
Emergency Powers Ordinance, Unlawful Instigation Ordinance, Unlawful Associations
Ordinance and Prevention of Molestation and Boycott Ordinance. Within a short time, the
number of Ordinances reached 13. The scope of those Ordinances was so comprehensive
that they covered “almost every activity of Indian life”. By 10 January, 1932, all the
leading Congressmen were behind the prison bars. The Congress was declared illegal. All
organisations connected with it in any way or sympathetic towards it were also declared
illegal. Youth leagues, students associations, national schools and institutions, Congress

199
hospitals, Swadeshi concerns and libraries were all declared illegal. There were hundreds
of names of this kind in every province.
Even before the Civil Disobedience movement was actually started by Gandhiji, he was
arrested along with Vallabhbhai Patel who at that time was the President of the Congress,
Thousands of Congressmen were arrested. The Government took forcible possession of
the offices of the Congress. Lathi charges were common to disperse the crowds. Even
women and children were not spared. Every effort was made to break the spirit of the
people. The cattle, household furniture, utensils, jewellery etc., were either confiscated or
destroyed. A deliberate attempt was made my the Government to make the lot of the
political prisoners worse than that of the convicts. A confidential circular was sent to all
the prison authorities emphasizing the facts that the prisoners of the Civil Disobedience
Movement must be dealt severely. Whipping became a common punishment.
In spite of that the movement continued. Meetings and demonstrations were held in spite
of restrictions. Liquor shops and foreign cloth shops were picketed. The people refused to
pay taxes. Salt laws broken. The national flag was hoisted on the Government buildings.
The boycott programme was extensive. The no-tax campaign was also continued.
The annual session of the Congress was to be held at Calcutta in 1933. In spite of all the
precautions taken by the Government, out of 2500 delegates who started for Calcutta only
about 1000 could be arrested on the way and the remaining 1500 managed to reach
Calcutta. Even while in Calcutta, they were belaboured, beaten and tortured.
In spite of that, the Congress session was held on 31 March, 1933 punctually at 3 P.M. in
Calcutta under the Presidenship of Mrs. J.M. Sen Gupta. However, a stage came when the
enthusiasm of the people became less and feelings of frustration set in. The movement
was suspended in May 1933 and completely withdrawn in May 1934. Gandhiji withdrew
from active politics.
The view of Dr. R.C. Mazumdar is that in spite of its failure to achieve the goal of
independence, the Civil Disobedience Movement had a great value and importance in
India’s struggle for Swaraj. It demonstrated the awakening of the political consciousness
among the masses to a degree undreamt of before either by the friends or foes of India. It
gave evidence of the high moral inspiration and unflinching courage infused among the
people by Gandhiji which gave men the strength to endure sufferings for the cause of the
country. Indirectly, the Civil Disobedience Movement fully exposed the real nature of the
British rule in India in all its naked hideousness and lowered its moral prestige in the eyes
of the whole world.
The Government of India Act was passed in 1935. The Congress condemned the Act as
unsatisfactory but found it difficult to oppose it in practice. It took part in the provincial
elections held under the Act of 1935 and came out victorious in 7 out of 11 provinces.
After some crisis, the Congress Ministries were formed in all but two States—Bengal and

200
the Punjab. The Congress Ministries were able to do a lot of useful work in the provinces.
They set up new standards of honesty. They tried to promote education and public health,
to give relief to the tenants and the indebted peasants. They took strong action against
untouchability. The 1930’s witnessed the rapid spread of socialist ideas and movements.
The number of trade unions and Kisan Sabhas increased. The left-wing of the Indian
National Congress became strong. Jawahar Lal Nehru was elected the Congress President
in 1936 and 1937. Subhas Chandra Bose was the Congress President in 1938 and 1939.
The Congress Socialist Party was formed in 1934 under the leadership of Acharya
Narendra Deo and Jayaprakash Narayan. Its representatives were taken in the Congress
Working Committee. The Communist Party was founded in the 1920’s.
During the 1930’s, there were popular movements among the people of the princely
states. In 1936, the All-India States’ Peoples Conference was organised. There was also
rapid growth of communalism, particularly Muslim communalism after 1937. In 1940,
the Muslim League passed the Pakistan resolution at its session at Lahore.

Second World War and the Congress

On 1 September, 1939, the Second World War began. On 3 September, 1939, the Viceroy
of India declared was against Germany without consulting or taking into confidence the
Indian leaders. Indian troops were sent to the various theatres of war for the defence of
the British Empire. The Working Committee of the Congress met at Wardha in
September 1939 and adopted a resolution in which it was declared that if the War was “to
defend the status quo, the imperialist possessions, colonies vested interests and privileges,
then India can have nothing to do with it. If, however, the issue is democracy and a world
based on democracy, then India is intensely interested in it. If Great Britain is fighting for
the maintenance and extension of democracy, then she must necessarily end imperialism
in her own possessions and establish full democracy in India.” The British Government
was called upon to declare its war aims and also to declare whether those aims were
“going to be to India and to be given effect to at present.” As there was no satisfactory
response from the Government, all the Congress Ministers inthe provinces resigned
towards the end of 1939.
On 27 July 1940, a resolution was passed by the Congress in which an offer of
cooperation in the War was made to the Government provided India’s demand for
independence was conceded and a Provisional National Government responsible to the
then Central Assembly was formed at the Centre. On 8 August 1940, the Viceroy issued a
statement in which it was declared that the new Constitution of India would primarily be
the responsibility of the Indians themselves. However, it was made clear that Great
Britain “could not contemplate transfer of their present responsibilities for the peace and
welfare of India to any system of Government whose authority is directly denied by large
and powerful elements in India’s national life, nor could they be parties to the coercion of
such elements into submission to such a Government.” It was also declared that after the

201
War, a “representative Indian Constitution making body would be set up and the Indian
proposals as to its form and operation would at any time be welcome”. The Congress was
wholly disappointed with the August Offer. The statement of August 1940 gave the
Muslim League the right of veto on any constitutional progress in India.
In March 1942, Cripps came to India with certain proposals of the British Government to
seek the cooperation of the Congress in the prosecution of the War. To begin with, the
response of the Congress was favourable. However, the Cripps Mission failed as it did
not offer anything substantial. On 11 April 1942, a resolution was passed by the Congress
Working Committee rejecting the Cripps proposals.

Quit India Movement

After the failure of the Cripps Mission, there was difference of opinion among the
Congress leaders regarding the future course of action. The view of Maulana Azead who
at that time was the Congress President, was that the negotiations should be resumed with
Great Britain and full cooperation should be extended if Great Britain made an absolute
promise of India’s independence after the War if the American President of the United
Nations gave a guarantee that the promise will be fulfilled. The view of Jawaharlal Nehru
was that the British Government must make a formal declaration of India’s independence
at once. The Provisional Government then formed should negotiate with Great Britain the
terms of cooperation. The Commander-in-Chief of the Allied Forces was to be given full
support in all decisions relating to military matters and the Japanese must be resisted by
the Indians at all costs. Mahatma Gandhi advocated mass action to drive out the British
from India.
A meeting of the Congress Working Committee was held at Wardha and after a lot of
discussion, a resolution was passed on 14 July, 1942. In that resolution, an appeal was
made to the British Government to grant India independence. It was made clear that if
that was not done, the Congress would be compelled to use all its strength for the
vindication of the rights of the people of India. The final decision was to be taken by the
All-India Congress Committee whose meeting was fixed for 7 August, 1942 at Bombay.
The Congress gave 24 days to the Government to make a favourable reply, On 15 July.
1942, Mahatma Gandhi told the foreign press that if the movement had to be launched, it
would be a non-violent one.
A meeting of the All-India Congress Committee was held at Bombay on 7 August, 1942.
The general feeling was that an attempt be made to come to a settlement with the
Government and for that purpose Mahatma Gandhi expressed his willingness to meet the
viceroy. However on 8 August, 1942, the famous “Quit India” resolution was moved by
Jawaharlal Nehru and passed by an overwhelming majority. It was declared in that
resolution that the immediate ending of the British rule in India was an urgent necessity,
both for the sake of India and for the success of the cause of the United Nations. India

202
had become the crux of the question. Great Britain and the United Nations will be judged
by the independence of India. Addressing the Congress delegates on the night of 8
August, 1942, Gandhiji said, “I, therefore, want freedom immediately, this very night,
before dawn, if it can be done. You may take it from me that I am not going to strike a
bargain with the Viceroy for ministers and the like. I am not going to be satisfied with
anything short of complete freedom. Here is a Mantra, s short one, that I give you. You
may imprint it on your hearts and let every breath of yours give expression to it. The
Mantra is: ‘Do or die’. We shall either free India or die in the attempt; we shall not live to
see the perpetuation of our slavery”.
When the resolution was passed, an appeal was made to great Britain and the United
Nations to respond to the call of reason and justice. It was also decided that all efforts
should be made to come to a settlement with the Government and it was only when those
efforts failed that the movement was to be started after Mahatma Gandhi had given his
sanction. Mahatma Gandhi and Maulana Azad openly declared that they would approach
the Viceroy again and the heads of the various Governments for an honourable
settlement. It was also decided that Jawaharlal Nehru was to explain on 9 August, 1942 to
the United States the scope and contents of “Quit India” resolution.
It appears that the Government had already finalized their plans to arrest the Congress
leaders and crush their movement. In the early hours of the morning of 9 August, 1942,
Mahatma Gandhi, Jawaharlal Nehru, Maulana Azad, Sardar Patel, Rajendra Prasad
Acharya Kriplani etc. were arrested. As many as 148 Congress leaders were arrested and
interned along with their followers. The people were stuned. As their leaders were
arrested all of a sudden, they did not know what to do. The result was that they carried on
the movement in any way they could. All over the country, there were hartals and strikes
in factories, schools and colleges and public demonstrations. The people took to violence
at many places on account of repeated firings and lathi charges. They attacked the police
stations, post offices, railway stations etc. They cut off telegraph and telephone wires and
railway lines; they burnt the Government buildings. Railway carriages were put on fire.
Even the military vehicles were destroyed. In some places, the people got temporary
control over towns, cities and villages. British authority disappeared in parts of Uttar
Pradesh, Bihar, Orissa, West Bengal, Maharashtra, Andhra and Madras. At some places,
the people set parallel Governments.
The Government used all its machinery to suppress the movement. Hundreds of persons
were arrested and imprisoned. A large number of persons was killed mainly by the firing
of the military and the police. The people we insulted, assaulted and injured regardless of
their position and status. Whipping was inflicted on many and heavy collective fines were
imposed and recovered. Those fines were collected only from the Hindus. There was
machine-gunning of mobs from air at five places. The official view is that the civilian
casualties from August to December 1942, 940 were killed and many more injured. The

203
view of Jawaharlal Nehru is that the figures of the dead varied between 4,000 to
10,000.More than 60,000 persons were arrested up to the end of 1942, 26,000 persons
were convicted and 18,000 were detained under the Defence of India Rules.
Ultimately, the quit India movement failed and its failure was due to many causes. The
first was the tactical mistakes of organisation and planning. The arrest of Mahatma
Gandhi and the other Congress leaders left the people without any leadership or guidance.
There was no coordination and no strategy. Those who led the movement were divided in
their views on the course of action. Nobody knew what to do. The loyalty of the services
and the superior physical strength of the Government succeeded in crushing the revolt.
The movement did not have the support of the upper classes of India consisting of rich
merchants, landlords and princes and also a part of labour. On the whole, the Muslims
remained aloof from the movement. The Communist Party of India along with its party
workers kept the link with the Government of India and furnished it with details about the
whereabouts of the Congressmen.
It is true that the revolt of 1942 was a failure, but it prepared the ground for the
independence of India in 1947. After the revolt, no doubt was left in the minds of the
British rulers that their days of domination over India were numbered. It was only a
question of time. The revolt market the culmination of the Indian freedom movement.
Indian national Army
In the meanwhile, Subhas Chandra Bose carried on struggle from outside India’s
frontiers. He had escaped from India in March 1941 to berlin to seek German help. From
there he went to Tokyo where he formed the Indian National Army (Azad Hindu Faug)
out of the Indian residents in South East Asia and the Indian soldiers captured by the
Japanese in Malaya, Singapore and Burma. Subhas Chandra Bose, now known as Netaji,
gave the I.N.A. two slogans: Jai Hind and Dilli Chalo. He hoped to enter India at the head
of the Indian national Army and the Provisional Government of India. The soldiers of the
I.N.A fought on the eastern frontiers of India But they were ultimately defeated as Japan
which was helping them, collapsed. The armies had to retreat from Burma. Netaji himself
was killed in an aeroplane accident in 1955. It is true that the soldiers of the Indian
National Army were defeated and they surrendered but their daring exploits on the front
inspired the Indians.
Two important events took place in 1945. There were General Elections in England and
the Labour Party came to power. On 14 August, 1945, Japan surrendered and the
hostilities ended in the Far East. Unlike Churchill, the new Labour Government headed
by Attlee was sympathetically inclined towards the Indian demand for freedom. As the
pre-occupation with the War was over, the Labour Government tried to solve the Indian
problem. Lord Wavell, Viceroy of India, was summoned to London for consultations. On
his return, he declared on 19 September, 1945 that the British Government had decided to
convene a Constitution-making body in the near future. It was declared that elections to

204
the Central Assembly and the Provincial Legislatures would be held “during the coming
cold weather”. Elections to the Central Assembly were held in November and December
1945. In the first week of January 1946, Prime Minister Attlee declared in the house of
Commons that India herself must decide her future Constitution and no minority in India
could be allowed to place a veto on the advance of the majority. The Cabinet mission
reached Delhi on 24th March, 1946. It had prolonged negotiations with the leaders of the
Congress and the Muslim League. Ultimately, on 16 May 1946, it gave its own solution
of the problem of India known as the Cabinet Mission Scheme. An attempt was made to
maintain the unity of India with a lot of autonomy to the provinces. On 2 September
1946, Jawaharlal Nehru formed the Interim Government. The Constituent Assembly met
on 9 December, 1946 but it was boycotted by the Muslim League. On 20 February, 1947,
the British Government declared that it would transfer power into the hands of the Indians
by a date not later than June, 1948. Lord Mountbatten who succeeded Lord Wavell as
Viceroy and Governor-General of India in March 1947 gave his 3 June plan for the
partition of India. The Indian Independence Act was passed by the British Parliament in
July 1947. It provided for the dominions of Indian and Pakistan. On 15 August, 1947
India became independent. On 30 January, 1948, Mahatma Gandhi was shot dead by a
Hindu fanatic.
Role of Mahatma Gandhi in India’s Struggle for Independence
Mahatma Gandhi is rightly called the Father of the Indian nation. It was under his
leadership that India became independent. It is true that the ground had already been
prepared by the various Congress leaders who fought the battle of India’s freedom since
1885. It is the Moderate leaders who brought the Indians on one platform. The Indians
learnt to sit together and work together. They learnt to present their grievances to the
Government. To begin with, those were in the form of petitions but later on the Indian
leaders began to put them in the form of demands from the Government. The Indian
leaders like Dadbhai Naoroji, Ranade, Pherozshah Mehta, Surnedranath Banerjee,
Gokhale, Lala Lajpat Rai, B.C. Pal, Tilak and Aurobindo Ghose, played their part in
creating and awakening among the people of India. These leaders themselves suffered for
the cause of the country and their followers also suffered. The result of their efforts was
that the battle of India’s freedom made some headway before the arrival of Mahatma
Gandhi on the scene.
Before Mahatma Gandhi, the nationalist movement was confined to the cities and towns
and the intellectuals of the country. Those leaders had no touch which the masses of
India. It goes to the credit of Mahama Gandhi that he brought about a revlolution in the
nature of the nationalist movement in the country. Whatever he did, he did, he had one
object and that was to involve the people of India in the national movement. He worked
among the peasants and he appealed to them for support. He appealed to the workers and
got their support.

205
It was Mahatma Gandhi who was responsible for the starting of the Non-Cooperation
Movement in 1920. Preparations for it were made all over the country. The movement
was not confined to the cities or the higher classes of India. It is the masses who
participated in it. Although the movement was suspended, Mahatma Gandhi became the
leader of the masses of India.
The same can be said about the Civil Disobedience Movement from 1930 to 1934. The
leadership of Mahatma Gandhi during these years is evident to all students of Indian
history. It is he who started the movement in 1930 and he withdrew the same in 1934. He
was the unquestioned and unrivalled leader of the movement. It is he who negotiated the
Gandhi-Irwin Pact of 1931. It is he who went to the second Round Table Conference as
the only representative of the Congress.
No body can deny the part Played by Mahatma Gandhi in the Quit India Movement.
During the deliberations of 7 August, 1942, and 8 August, 1942 everybody looked up to
him for guidance and leadership. His was the last word. It is he who asked the people to
get freedom for their country or die fighting. He was the leader of all those who were
arrested and detained on the morning of 9 August, 1942.
About the role of Gandhiji, Jawaharlal wrote in 1945, “Gandhiji’s influence is not limited
to those who agree with him or accept him as a national leader, it extends to those also
who disagree with him and criticise him. To the vast majority of India’s people, he is the
symbol of India determined to be free, of militant nationalism, of a refusal to submit to
arrogant might, of never agreeing to anything involving national dishonour. Though
many people in India may disagree with him on a hundred matters, though they may
criticise him or even part company from him on some particular issue, at a time of action
and struggle when Indian’s freedom is at stake, they flock to him and look up to him as
their inevitable leader”.
An idea of the role of Mahatma Gandhi in India’s struggle for reedom can also be had
from the following resolution passed by the Indian Parliament on 24 December, 1969,
“That this House on the occasion of the centenary year of Mahatma Gandhi pays its
respectful tribue to the memory of the Father of the Nation, who led the country to
Swarajya by non-violent means, who infused a new spirit into the masses, who uplifted
the teeming millions of the oppressed and the downtrodden, who awakened the national
conscience of the people and who inspired the people with a spirit of dedication and
service, places on record its deep gratitude to that Apostle of Ahimsa who crusaded for
peace, justice and equality and gave the strife-ridden world the message of universal
brotherhood and humanism; and rededicated itself to promote the high ideals of truth,
non-violence and service to the nation and to humanity, for which the Mahatma lived and
sacrificed his life.”

206
 Unit-VII
(a) The 1920s: Community and Communalism: The
Organization of Religious Difference and Antagonism
Devyani Gupta
University of Delhi

Introduction
Most historians agree that communalism is a recent phenomenon which emerged in the
Indian subcontinent in the second half of the nineteenth century. Communalism is
context-dependent and cannot be explained simply in ideological terms. At its heart lies
the search for and recognition of individual identity. The knowledge of this individuation
has existed since time immemorial. It is only in the colonial and post-colonial period that
identity politics in South Asia have come to be tied up with broader issues of
communitarian loyalty.
What is Communalism?
Adherence to a religion or religious system is not communalism. Attachment to a
religious community or demonstrating religiosity is not communalism. The exploitation
of religion for political, electoral, factional and other gains is communalism.
Communalism is the belief that people who follow the same religion have common
political, economic, social and cultural interests, and that such interest of one religious
community are dissimilar and divergent, incompatible and antagonistic from those of
other communities. Communalism perceives other religious communities within a polity
as enemies; it propagates the supremacy of one’s own community identity to the
detriment of all other identities and teaches absolute allegiance to one’s religious
community, at the cost of exclusion of national identity.
In the context of South Asia, Communalism has been used to denote attempts to promote
primarily religious stereotypes between groups of people identified as different
communities and to stimulate violence between such groups. It derives not from
community but from tensions between the (religious) communities.i
Developments leading up to the 1920s
The roots of communalism, both Hindu and Muslim, can be traced to the last quarter of
the nineteenth century, when revivalist movements started gaining ground and socio-
religious issues such as music before mosques competition over public places for
religious demonstrations, cow slaughter, etc. came to gain importance. These trends were
strengthened by colonial attempts, to regulate and standardize Indian culture and way of
life, through census and other enumeration exercise.
Socio-economic tendencies were buttressed by institutional developments, such as the
establishment of the All India Muslim League in 1906, which was founded as a loyalist,

207
communal and conservative political organization. Much earlier, Hindu communalism
had started unfolding with the rise of Hindi-Urdu controversy in 1867, the growth of
Arya Samaj Movement (1875 onwards) and the anti cow-slaughter propaganda of the
1890s. The All India Hindu Mahasabha was founded subsequently in 1915. The
introduction of Morley Minto Reforms of 1909, with its system of reservation in
legislatures, government services, educational institutions, etc. institutionalized
communal differences. The Lucknow Pact of 1916 accepted separate electorates and
reservation for minorities in the legislatures.
The structure of communalism was strengthened in the 1920s after the institution of
Montague-Chelmsford Reforms and their provision for separate electorates and widening
of electoral franchise. The arrangement of ‘Dyarchy’, introduced under the Act of 1919,
placed certain department of the Government, viz. local self-government, education,
agriculture, etc. under the control of provincial ministries responsible to the legislature.
As a result, Indian political leaders became engaged in devising new techniques for
gaining majority in any given legislature. One way of garnering support and votes was
through appeals to community and religious sentiments. In elections for municipalities,
national leaders across the political spectrum, including Congress leaders like Madan
Mohan Malviya started appealing to particular community sentiments to garner votes.
The years of Khilafat and Non-Cooperation Movement had been marked by Hindu-
Muslim unity. But there was a resurgence of communal tendencies post-1922. The
Moplah uprising of 1921 brought in its wake an active struggle for religious conversion
and re-conversion. The League became active again and the Hindu Mahasabha was
revived in 1923. Sangathan and Shuddhi (among Hindus) and Tanzim and Tabligh
(among Muslims) movements emerged forcefully, with the aim of communal propagation
and religious conversion. The formation of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh in 1925
was another landmark in communal politics. Economic fluctuations in the early decades
of the twentieth century added to the prevailing sense of insecurity and provided a ready
audience for politicians seeking to engage in a communal rhetoric.
Meanwhile, Congress efforts to negotiate with various communal groupings took the
form of the Indian National Pact and C.R. Das Pact of 1923; subsequently, Congress tried
to stitch together a nationalist constitution in response to the Simon Commission and also
address issues of communal representation through the medium of Nehru Report (1928);
all these measures failed to address minority demands.
This period is however very important for the Congress in organizational terms. The early
decades of the twentieth century were witness to the rise of second-rung leadership of the
national movement (in its mass phase), as typified by Lal Bahadur Shastri and Acharya
Nayaran Dev, among others. These personalities were the product of Congress
institutional, political and social engagement with needs of a growing urban, commercial
and educated Indian society. They were able to bridge the gap between town and

208
countryside on one hand, while on the other they were successful in operationalizing
Gandhian programmes against untouchability et al.
Arguably more significant was the emergence of another stream of political leadership in
this period, which was concentrated in the ascetic figures of Baba Raghav Das, Swami
Shraddhanand and Rahul Sankrityayan. As political leaders of the time, these men
emerged from an alternative cultural milieu of religious schools, Sanskritic knowledge
systems and akhara learning, which in turn emphasized the religious complexion of their
political engagement. Their significance lies in the fact that they were truly ‘organic
leaders’, who had emerged from within the rank and file of the common Indian in the
countryside and could rightly claim to speak as representatives of millions of peasants
and other subaltern groups.
1920s: Communal Differences and Conflict
Conceptions of ‘Self’ and the ‘Other’
In the light of these institutional and socio-political development, we must try and
investigate the nature of increasing religious strife and the hardening of religious
positions and identities in the second decade of the twentieth century. Communal
identities are often constructed around specifically religious (or sacred) symbols and
issues, such as playing music before mosques, cow slaughter or cow protection,
desecration of idols, clashes over observance of religious festivals on a specific date or
over a particular public space. The uniqueness of communalism, as it developed in India
(especially North India) in this period, was the appeal to community identity and
sentiments, through the medium of malicious and polemic pamphlet warfare. Voluntary
communal organizations, and propaganda through various channels of print and
publication media, played an important role in the rise and growth of communalism.
Riots were rampant between 1920 and 1947 and provided great scope for self-publicity
and vilification of the opposition. Here, language and linguistic identity itself emerged as
political tools in executing programmes of vendetta structured by considerations of
community loyalty. Perceptions of what constituted ‘self’ and the ‘other’ was gaining
ground and intensified in this period. With these developments, community identities
were imparted a new fixity, while conflicts were frozen and came to be used as
propaganda to perpetuate the idea of communalism.
Communalism, Women and the Polemics of Pamphlet Warfare
The period was thus witness to churnings in Indian society over issues of what constituted
‘us’ and ‘them’; the direct fall-out of such a process was the attempted ordering of
communities through the classification of women as ‘ours’ and ‘theirs’. Any kind of
articulation of ‘the community’ has women at its core; women are the ground over which
communities are drawn and re-drawn. Women become both the object and site of
violence, as they are seen as the keepers of the conscience of a particular religion. There
is the attendant tendency to glorify the purity of women of a particular community and

209
scorn the loose morality of women of other communities. In 1920s, the rise of communal
politics and violence provided for increasing denigration and exploitation of the female
figure in both popular text and context. Significantly, this issue encompassed a reality
that existed beyond the phenomena of communal riots or politics; it was about everyday
definition of the ‘self and community’, which was being forged in a big way in the 1920s,
but against the background of massive communal polarization.
The immediate context of communal mobilization was the Khilafat and Non-Cooperation
Movement. Gandhi has often been accused of introducing religion into the realm of
politics, but it is undeniable that the movement marked the peak of Hindu-Muslim
solidarity during the period of mass nationalist struggle. However, this invited a forceful
Hindu reaction. If the period of 1919-21 saw the overlapping of local Khilafat and
village/district level Congress communities, the period immediately after the collapse of
the Non-Cooperation Movement would witness an overlap among the cadres of the Hindu
Mahasabha and the Congress. In 1923, Swami Sharaddhanand of the Arya Samaj
launched the Shuddhi or purification programme. Shraddhanand is an interesting figure -
his public career was spent oscillating between the Congress and Hindu Mahasabha. He
was a key figure during the Rowlatt Satyagraha in Delhi and yet, was at the heart of
Hindu-Muslim controversy. Gandhi took him on board for his untouchability campaign,
but Shradddhanand’s radical stance in favour of complete segregation of public places
along caste lines forced him and Gandhi to part ways. Meanwhile the Census of 1921 had
announced that the Hindu race was losing out in pure numbers to other communities. A
colonial tool in favour of the policy of ‘Divide and Rule’, the Census Report of 1921
drew an immediate response from Swami Shraddhanand, who published a pamphlet
entitled ‘Save the Dying Race’ (1923). Shraddhanand used the expression to draw
attention to the low growth rate among Hindus and to suggest that the mighty Aryan race
was dying due to internal divisions and narrow self-interests. He insisted that martial
spirit needed to be strengthened to re-kindle the entire race.
The aim of the Shuddhi programme was to reclaim to Hinduism converts who had broken
away from the community in the past. One such constituency, which was the focal point
of shuddhi agitation, was the Malkana Rajputs of western Uttar Pradesh, as also the
Baniyas and Gujars. The Hindu Mahasabha, in its Benaras session of 1923, which was
significantly presided over by Congressman Madan Mohan Malviya, adopted the shuddhi
resolution. Concentrated in the district of Mainpuri, the Malkana Rajputs were adherents
of Islam, but had retained several Hindu practices as well. They were thus perceived as a
community waiting to be brought back into the fold of Hinduism. The shruddhi
programme was to have an immense impact in Punjab and Uttar Pradesh, but it also had
serious communal ramifications across India, even though the colonial administration
refused to allow its spread to the Malabar in the wake of the Moplah uprising. The Arya
Sama now became engaged in acquiring an all-India character. Newsreels in cinema and
press reports in papers came to depict forcible conversions to Islam, circumcision of

210
Hindu men and abduction and rape of Hindu women.ii Such propaganda was to have a
divisive effect on the nature of Indian communal solidarity.
The Muslim response to the above came in the form of the foundation of a local Tabligh-
i-Islam group in Aligarh in April 1923. The shuddhi and tabligh groups started competing
for religious converts and cash donations. Shraddhanand’s popularity as a mass leader
remained unmatched in terms of his ability to raise funds and by 1927, over a lakh and a
half Malkana Rajputs had been brought within the fold of Hinduism. The campaign that
accompanied these movements embittered social relations and was characterized by the
‘othering’ of supposedly antagonistic communities. This involved caricaturing their way
of life, religious beliefs and most significantly, their women. As a response to the
propaganda unleashed by Shraddhanand, Khwaja Hasan Nizami published a pamphlet
called ‘Daiya-i-Islam’, in which he set forth a target for every Muslim believer to convert
one crore Hindus.
The ensuing pamphlet warfare between the two communities was centred on the
perceived threat faced by “our women” from “their men”; women came to be seen as the
site of collective community honour and thus, their honour itself became the concern of
the entire community. The Hindu communalists were successful in constructing the
image of uncontrolled virility and lustfulness of the Muslim make and the abduction of
Hindu women came to be seen as a typical activity that characterized the life of a virile,
masculine Muslim.iii These notions of ‘masculinity’ fed into movements like shuddhi,
sangathan (and tabligh), emphasizing the acquisition of strength through communal
resources, for it was propagated that Hindus lagged behind Muslims in terms of
mobilization and militancy. The program sought to promote a ‘martial culture’ among
Hindus through the setting up akharas, that were to train men of the community in
physical activities like wrestling, fencing, gymnastics and the use of lathis. Certain
historical figures became charged with contemporary political significance, like Shivaji
and Maharana Pratap.
Interestingly, the discourse of sangathan attacked the Gandhian philosophy of ‘ahimsa’,
by arguing that non-violence cultivated a culture of femininity among Hindus. And yet,
the Congress rank and file visited the Lajpat Physical Training Camp at Ghazipur
inAugust 1929 and published a statement that not only welcomed the idea of training the
youth to work together as a disciplined force, but also lauded the provincial Hindu Sabha
for taking up this task.iv This could have hardly inspired confidence among Muslims
within and outside the Congress superstructure.
The popular conception of masculinity came to colour the discourse attached to Hindu
women as well, who were usually seen as victims of Muslim aggression and depravity.
Legends and myth of Aryan and Rajput women, who had given up their life to defend
their honour and chastity from marauding Muslim invaders, were invoked. A pamphlet
entitled ‘Sangathan ka Bigul’ addressed itself to its ‘Hindu sisters’ as thus: “Every sister
who joins the army of this revolution called Sangathan should definitely have a sharp

211
knife… should practice for 10-15 minutes with this knife. This can easily be done by
cutting various fruits such as the custard apple and watermelon. It is a prime religious
duty of all women who enter the army of sangathan to be able to defend their chastity
and honour.”v Thus, shuddhi and sangathan allowed for two distinct and mutually
exclusive notions of female existence – as victims, and agents of Hindus community
honour; but in both capacities, the woman was nevertheless constrained by male
standards of behaviour.
Pamphlets such as ‘Rangila Vasool’ and ‘Vichitra Jivan’ caricatured the life of the
Prophet and one of them questioned, “…can he be paigamber, who has committed incest
with his own daughters?” The debauchery of Muslim rulers was openly commented upon
and these standards were applied to the common Muslim male. The issue of abduction of
women was once again a central trope of this campaign and provocative tracts such as
‘Hindu Streyon Ke Loot Ke Karan’ appeared.vi This rhetoric struck an emotive chord,
especially with the lower caste men, as such instances of communitarian antagonism
helped create a unique situation of unity within communities, and weaker sections were
able to transcend barriers of caste and sect to identify with the community as a whole.
Communalism and the Reinforcement of Patriarchy
Women’s bodies too were central to purposes of production, reproduction and
perpetuation of identities. Anshu Malhotra studies the popular feminine discourse of
kissas and jhaggras, composed in Punjab in this period.vii They represent an attempt to
discipline and control the domain of women’s popular culture, which revolved around the
autonomous management of their body and fertility and was often outside the purview of
male control. Thus, shared popular religious practices came under attack, for they
hindered the crystallization of static religious identities. Procreation of male progeny was
central to carrying forward male patrilineage and was one of the main responsibilities
bestowed on women by an overwhelmingly patriarchal society. Calling a woman banjh or
barren was the ultimate insult that could be heaped on her. The author of Kissa ‘Sand
Nar’ stigmatizes the childless woman as a ‘Barren Buffalo’.viii Barrenness of a woman
was reason enough for the husband to remarry, as was a wife who gave birth to the girl-
child. Women’s successful procreativity could alter relations of power within the
household, indicating that women too participated in the maintenance of patriarchal
structures of power. In situations of desperation, women took recourse to practices from
popular cultures that were easily accessible to them, such as witchcraft, sorcery, tunas
and totkas. However, the most common resort of women in such situations of distress was
embodied in the syncretic culture of visiting pirs.
Sultan Sakhi Sarwar, whose shrine was in Dera Ghazi Khan in the district of Punjab, was
a revered pir with a mass, cross-cultural following, as were Gugga Pir and Ghazi Mian.
These figures were seen as givers of fertility; there were several tales of how Hindu
women had been blessed with children by these pirs. These practices of women’s popular
culture now came under severe attack, for not only did they blur caste and community

212
boundaries, but more significantly, they challenged Hindu masculinity and patriarchy.
Implicit in this was the fear of the possible sexual play between the pir and the Hindu
woman’s body. An alternative history of Gahzi Mian was thus constructed, wherein he
was portrayed as a butcher of cows and murderer of Hindus. He was proclaimed the
destroyer of the Somnath temple along with Mahmud of Ghaznavi and it came to be
rumoured that he was involved in the abduction and violation of Hindu girls, who were
then forcibly married to Muslim men at his behest. Fear was sought to be instilled in the
hearts of his Hindu women followers through this patriarchal, communitarian discourse,
whereby it was said that the women would be widowed if they worshipped Ghazi Mian,
but would be blessed with a son if they gave up his worship.ix
Other aspects of popular culture, such as the participation of women and children of all
communities in popular Muslim festivals like the tazia procession were attacked
rigorously as well. Women were ridiculed for participating in festival associated with
Muslims and a tract entitled ‘Hindu aur Tazia’ declared, “… these female devotees of
tazia, these religiously debauched Hindu women… break their bangles during ten days of
tazia and wail. Thus, in some senses they treat their alive husbands as dead. Are Hassan
and Hussain their husbands that they moan like this?”x This fear of Hindu patriarchy
stemmed from the fact that religious festivals like the tazia procession tended to signify a
moment of disorder in the patriarchal regimentization of Hindu society and undermined
the long-established sacral notion of the ‘Hindu Pativratha’. Like practices of popular
culture, festivals and ritual celebrations like Holi too came to be considered irreverent to
established moral codes of society; these moments of festivities gave license to
individuals to escape from the constraints of everyday life and thus emerged as the
favoured targets reformistminded religious keepers. Such occurrences and events were
seen as undermining the norms and values of society, as they allowed for free
intermingling of the ‘high’ and the ‘low’, parodying of figures of authority and thus
represented “a world turned upside down”.
The study of communalism through the gender perspective is very significant as it
unsettles the neat categorizations made in nationalist historiography and provides
valuable insights into the life of subaltern groups, minorities and women’s culture; it
gives a voice to the voiceless masses, which have largely been ignored in the
reconstruction of the history of modern India.
Conclusion
As communal tensions spiraled, an economic and social boycott of sorts was brought into
force with regard to certain communities and classes. Meetings were held and notices
issued, announcing the unacceptability of employing Muslim dancing girls and musicians
at weddings. In Haridwar, the Yatri Sabha prevented pilgrims from hiring the services of
Muslim tonga-wallahs. Similarly, work- related tasks performed by Muslim women
included selling vegetables and bangles (churihars). This often brought them into close
contact with women of other communities and such social interaction now came to be

213
frowned upon. It was propagated that Muslim women were of loose morals and Hindu
women coming into contact with such women would lose control of their sexuality and
fall prey to the virile Muslim male. Such jobs were now taken over by Hindus. This was
detrimental to the economic growth of some communities and especially, to the security
of the weaker classes within all communities. Among the lower castes, women had long
been equal partners in terms of labour and had participated in activities aimed at earning a
livelihood. However, such communal polemics now helped build a case for the re-
assertion of patriarchy. Anxiety was also expressed about the working class Hindu
woman, who went out and worked in a mixed sex group and thus faced a greater chance
of falling prey to Muslim men.xi
Hence, on one hand communitarian differences and antagonisms were getting solidified
and on the other, male patriarchy came to use these communally divisive tendencies to
establish greater control over female sexuality, which was seen as deviant and
uncontrollable. In an age when numbers became crucial to judging the strength of a
community, women could no longer be allowed to retain autonomy and control over their
reproductive capabilities. This responsibility was taken out of their hands and turned into
a community concern.xii Patriarchy came to be reinforced through the absolute control of
female sexuality; any transgression on the part of the woman was seen as collective
failure of the entire community. One such attempt to discipline deviant female sexuality
was seen in the case of young Hindu widows; their reproductive capacities came to be
seen as a community resource that could be used to enhance the declining numbers of the
Hindu race. As a result, even if a Hindu woman was impregnated by a Hindu male under
immoral or unlawful circumstances, the woman was not allowed to kill the foetus.
Significantly, a Hindu man who managed to marry and convert a Muslim girl was
valourised as a community hero’, for he had the distinction of bringing one reproductive
unit into “our fold”.
The communal process that had now been set into motion was a consequence of the
interplay of a complex array of factors and could not be held back or reversed. With time,
the problem intensified, as is reflected in the periodic communal flare-ups in the period
leading up to Independence. We see other exclusionary trends at work as well, such as the
withdrawal of Muslims from the realm of nationalist political activity, the strengthening
of identity and community movements and organizations, the increasingly radical agenda
of the religious right and so on, so forth. These trends culminated in the horrific partition
riots; women of the other community were once again made victims of immense
depravity and sexual violence. This practice emerged as an acceptable means of seeking
vengeance on the opposing group and an effective way of ‘shaming’ members of the
other community. Women were regarded as the ultimate repositories of community
culture, honour and values, and their violation was the violation of the religion and
culture of the other community.

214
i
Pandey, Gyanendra, The Construction of Communalism in Colonial North India, Oxford University
Press, India, 2006
ii
Thursby, G. R., Hindu-Muslim Relations in British India: A Study of Controversy, Conflict and
Communal Movements in Northern India, 1923-28, Leiden E. J. Brill, 1975, p. 140
iii
Gupta, Charu, Sexuality, Obscenity and Community: Women, Muslims, and the Hindu Public in
Colonial India, Palgrave Macmillan, 2002, p. 229
iv
Pandey, 2006, pp. 126-127
v
Gupta, 2002, p. 236
vi
Ibid, p. 267
vii
Malhotra, Anshu, Gender, Caste and Religious Identity: Restructuring Class in Colonial Punjab.
Oxford University Press, New Delhi, 2002
viii
Ibid, pp. 171- 175
ix
Gupta, 2002. pp. 289- 296
x
Ibid. pp. 285-286
xi
Ibid. pp. 273-280
xii
Malhotra, 2002, p. 182

Suggested Readings
1. Charu Gupta. Sexuality, Obscenity and Community: Women, Muslims, and the Hindu
Public in Colonial India, Palgrave Macmillan, 2002.

215
 Unit-VIII
Independent India: Making of the Constitution: The Evolution
of the Constitution and its Main Provisions; Basic Features of
the Constitution

The Indian Independence Act 1947

The Indian Independence Act was passed by the House of Commons on 15th July, 1947
and by the House of Lords the following day and received the royal assent on the 18th of
July 1947. The Act contains twenty sections and three schedules.
The Act provided for setting up of two independent Dominions, known respectively as
India and Pakistan. Each Dominion was to have a Governor-General appointed by the
King of England on the advice of the Dominion. The Legislature of each Dominion was
given full power to make laws for that Dominion and henceforth no Act of the British
Parliament was to extend to either of the Dominions. The suzerainty of the English King
over The Indian States also lapsed.
Thus came to an end the British rule whose foundations were laid at the battle of Plassey.
It is indeed a tragic irony that the people who had done so much to bring about unity in a
torn and disjointed India themselves became the ready instruments to break up that unity.
This is the greatest indictment of their rule. No other proof of the utter futility of their rule
is needed.
On 15th August 1947, India became Independent. The working constitution of India was
framed by the Indian Constituent Assembly during the period December 1948 to
December 1949. It was adopted on 26th November 1949 and come into force from 26
January 1950.

The Constitution of Independent India

The Constitution of India declares India a sovereign Democratic secular and socialist
Republic. It rests on the democratic philosophy of justice, liberty, equality and fraternity.
The following are the salient features of the Constitution.
The longest and the most comprehensive constitution in the world: The Indian
Constitution, in the words of Ivor Jennings, is the longest and the most detailed in the
world. It is a formidable document of Articles (divided into 22 parts) and 9 Schedules.
This unusual size of the Indian Constitution is in part due to its own character. It is a
federal constitution, which is generally longer than the constitution of a unitary state.
Besides, unlike most of the federal constitutions, it embodies the structure of not only the
Central Government but also of the government in the states. In addition to that, it deals

216
with the various aspects of these governments in greal detail. The chapters on the Union
Government, the State Governments and the Union-State relations alone cover more than
240 Articles. Further, our constitution – makers could not be indifferent to the prevailing
constitutions and peculiar circumstances. They could not discard the Act of 1935, which
for a decade or so had, on the whole, worked well. They, were fully alive to the
immediate problems and the future needs of the country. They also felt it necessary to
satisfy the diverse and conflicting claims of the various sections of the society they,
Therefore, borrowed profusely from the Act of 1935. They included a number of
provisions relating to official language, scheduled castes, scheduled tribes and such other
problems peculiar to India. They inserted therein an collaborate list of Fundamental
Rights and also a full chapter of 16 Articles on the Directive Principles of State policy.
Apart from that, they preferred to rely more on word than on convention. All this
naturally added to the bulk of Constitution.
A Sovereign Democratic Republic: The Preamble to the Constitution defines new India
as a Sovereign Democratic Republic. This description of India is quite significant. The
word Sovereign emphasises that India is no more a ‘dependency of the British Empire (as
she was before the passage of the Indian Independence Act, 1947) nor is her political
status that of a ‘Dominion’ which she had been from 15th of August 1947 to 26 January
1950. On the other hand, she is a sovereign state in the sense and manner in which Great
Britain, the U.S.S.R., the United States of America and the Swiss Republic are. Being a
sovereign power, India is completely free from external control. No outside power has a
right to interfere with her internal administration or direct her in the conduct of her
foreign policy.
The term ‘Democratic’ signifies that India has adopted a democratic way of life. Her
constitution seeks to establish a form of government, which derives its authority from the
will of the people. The people elect the rulers of the country and the latter are accountable
to the people. Besides, the State does not discriminate against any citizen on the grounds
of religion, birth sex, creed, caste or colour. The elimination of the communal electorates
and the introduction of the adult franchise the abolition of titles and ban on
untouchability, equality of opportunity in matters of public employment, the freedom of
speech and expression, etc. etc……… all that is provided in the constitution……..
undoubtedly aim at establishing a truly democratic set up in the country. The emphasis on
democracy is also evident from the fact that the constitution guarantees in every possible
manner a sense of justice, equality, freedom and security to all minorities in India and
upholds the principle of a composite secular state. Thus the word ‘Democratic’ in the
Preamble embraces, in addition to political democracy, social and economic democracy
as well.
The term ‘Republic’ in the preamble indicates that India has chosen to have an elected
head of the State. Her Chief Executive, the President, is not a hereditary monarch like the

217
British king but an elected head chosen for a limited period. As a matter of fact, the
acceptance of the republican form of government left no alternative for the fathers of the
constitution but to have an elected head of the State. For, under a Republican form of
government the head of the state is always elected for a specified period. The people of
the Indian Republic also elect one of them as their President for five years.
India—a Secular State: The scheme and provisions of the Indian Constitution seek to
make India a secular state. The Preamble to the constitution records the solemn resolve of
the people of India to secure to all citizens, (i) Social, economic and political justice (ii)
liberty of thought, expression, belief and worship and (iii) equality of status and
opportunity. The constitutional provisions relating to citizenship contemplate only one
class of citizenship. Part III, dealing with the Fundamental Rights of citizens contains
express provisions prohibiting discrimination against a citizen on grounds of religion,
race or caste. Similarly, provisions pertaining to adult suffrage, uniform civil code,
abolition of untouchability etc. etc., also make for a secular state.
India as a secular state does not profess any religion, nor does it discriminate against any.
It does not allow its authority to be used for the propagation of any religion or creed.
Even in the formulation of its policies it is not guided by any religious principles. It is
mainly concerned with the social, economic and political welfare of the people, leaving
the religious matters to the individual as his personal concern.
India is secular also in the sense that the Indian Republic treats all religions alike and
displays a benevolent neutrality towards them. It confers a wide range of freedom on the
individual of any religious denomination. Every office from the highest to the lowest is
open to its citizens without any discrimination.
The Indian secularism is not anti-God or anti-religion. The Indian constitution recognises
the existence of God. The President of India and other high dignitaries of the State have o
take an oath. Then, they have to swear in the name of God or make a solemn affirmation.
Besides, Indian secularism does not prohibit the State from interfering with the
undesirable activities, which may be carried on under the guise of religion. It does not
prohibit the States from implementing the programme of social reform. The spirit of
tolerance is the foundation of the theory of Indian secularism. To quote K. Subba Rao,
“India s a cradle of religions…..which govern the Indian social, political and economic
aspects of life. It is, therefore not possible to import or implant the finished product of the
secularism of the western variety on the Indian soil. The Indian constitution instead of
secularism, accepts the doctrine of tolerance.”
Parliamentary form of Government: The Indian Constitution provides for a
parliamentary form of government and this system has been adopted both at the centre
and in the states. The President of the Indian Union and Governors of the States are
constitutional heads with nominal powers. They act on the advice of their respective
cabinets, which wield the executive authority in the Union or in the States, as the case

218
may be. Besides, as is essential in a parliamentary form of government, the executive
(both at the Centre and in the States) is drawn from the legislature and depends for its
existence upon the confidence that the legislature has in it. The ultimate legislative and
executive control is vested in the popular house, which is elected on the adult suffrage.
Thus, the constitution-makers have followed the British model in setting up the
governmental machinery at the centre as well as in the States.
The parliamentary government in India has been given a constitutional basis. It does not
rest entirely on conventions. The drafters of the Constitution have left, only to a limited
extent, the successful working of the parliamentary government to the growth of suitable
conventions.
Federal inform but unitary in spirit: Though India has been described as a ‘Union of
States’ yet her constitution is essentially federal in form. It possesses many a feature of
the federal constitution. In the first place, the Constitution is the supreme law of the land.
Its provisions are binding on all governments. Neither the Union of Government nor the
Government in the States can override them. All the authorities must function under it
and be loyal to it. No law inconsistent with any of its provisions can prevail. The
President of India, the Governors of the States, and all other important dignitarie of the
Rebublic have to take an oath or affirmation to act according to the constitution.
Secondly, the Indian Constitution makes a thorough going division of power between the
Union and the States. Articles 245 and 246 lay down the principle of distribution of
powers, and the seventh schedule to the Constitution includes three legislative lists; the
Union List, the State List and the Concurrent List. Union List contains 97 items, which
are under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Parliament. The items of the State List (66 in
number) are normally within the competence of the State Legislatures. The Concurrent
list in common both to the Union and the State. Thirdly, as is essential in a federal polity,
our constitution has assigned a special position to the Supreme Court of India. It is the
highest interpreter of the Constitution and a tribunal for the final determination of the
disputes between the Union and its constituent units. It also exercises the power of
judicial review and adjuges the validity of legislative acts. Fourthly, a federal
Constitution is necessarily a written constitution. The Indian Constitution is also a written
one. It is also more or less rigid.
Despite these features of a federal Constitution, the Indian federal system is unitary in
spirit. There is more emphasis on unity than on union. The Constitution provides for a
very strong centre. The Union government has vast powers vis-à-vis the Governments of
the States (i) The scheme of distribution of subjects between the Centre and the States is
in favour of the former. The Union List contains more important subjects, which are also
larger in number (ii) As provided under the emergency provisions, the Union Executive
and Union Parliament can direct a State Government in the use of its powers or assume
all its powers (iii) Article 249 empowers the Parliament to legislate on any matter in the

219
State List. (iv) The Concurrent sphere is also the reserve of the Centre, where it can
intervene at will and oust the State authority. (v) Under Article 3 of the Constitution, the
Parliament can by a unilateral action establish new states, increase of decrease the area of
any state, change the name of any state, alter its boundaries or cause it to disappear (as it
happened to Hyderabad) by merging it with other states. This power of the Parliament
according to justice P.B. Ganjendragadvar, is completely destructive of the essence of a
federal state, which is supposed to be composed of units with co-ordinate but limited
powers. (vi) The governors of the states are appointed by the President and they remain if
office during his pleasure. (vii) The material provisions with regard to the financial
structure also make the Union powerful in relation to States. Apart from these over-riding
powers of the centre, the single constitutional frame, the integrated judicial system, the
organisation of the administrative service, the centralised electoral machinery, the single
citizenship etc, etc; also emphasise the unitary bias of the Indian Constitution.
Partly rigid and partly flexible: The Indian Constitution is partly rigid and partly
flexible. It is rigid in so far as the method of amendment for some of its provisions is not
easy. Neither the Union Government nor the Government in the States can change them
by a unilateral action. Besides, these provisions can be amended only by the method
prescribed in the constitution. And this method is different from that designed for
ordinary legislation. The Articles to which this method of amendment is applicable are
those dealing with (a) the election of the President; (b) the extent of the executive power
of the Union and the States; (c) the powers and the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and
the High Courts; (d) the distribution of powers; (e) any of the Lists in the Seventh
Schedule; (f) the representation of States in Parliament and (g) Provisions of Article 368.
Despite the element of rigidity in it, the Indian Constitution is flexible in character. It is
evident from the ease with which the majority of its provisions can be amended. In their
case the constitution can be changed by a majority vote in the Parliament. There is no
need of any ratification by the States. The constitution is also flexible in the sense of its
being elastic. It can be both federal and unitary according to the requirements and
circumstances. In times of war, insurrection or breakdown of the Constitutional
machinery in a State, it can be made to function as a unitary one. But, after the emergency
is over, it can resume its formal form without any damage to its essence. This unique
blend of rigidity and flexibility in respect of amending process was designed to meet a
variety of circumstances.
Indian Constitution— A Social Document: The Indian Constitution is first and
formemost a social document. The majority of its provisions seek to bring about a social
revolution by reconstructing the Indian Social structure on modern foundation (of law,
individual merit and secular education). The Fundamental Rights embodied in Part III of
the Constitution attempt to create a social order in which all citizens are equally free from
the coercion and restriction by the State and liberty is no longer the privilege of the few.

220
Part IV relating to the Directive Principles of Stare Policy contains even a clearer
statement of the social revolution. Its provisions aim at making the Indian masses free in
the positive sense, free from centuries old passivity, free from abject physical conditions
that had stood in the way of their material, moral and physical development. Thus, the
Indian constitution is a document of striking social significance. It seeks to achieve the
goals, which the social reformers spread over a very long period of Indian history could
not attain.
Universal Adult Suffrage: The Indian Constitution has adopted the principle of adult
suffrage. Every citizen (man or woman) of 18 years of above has this right to vote in the
elections to the various representative bodies like the House of people and to State
Legislative Assemblies. Moreover, the citizens of India now vote as individuals and not
as Hindus, Muslims and Christians.
The introduction of adult suffrage at one stroke and without any qualification sand in a
backward country like India was, indeed, a very bold step. It was feared that instead of
furthering the cause of democracy, the adult suffrage would prove suicidal to its very
existence. Though the results of the subsequent election have fairly justified the faith
reposed by the Fathers of the Constitution in the common man, yet it is too early to say
anything with certainly.
A unique document drawn from many sources: It is often alleged that the constitution
of India is purely a Western character. A large number of its articles, either in wording or
in context, have been borrowed from foreign Constitutions. The influence of Great
Britain is particularly paramount not only as expressed through the 1935 Act, but also
through the adoption of the parliamentary form of government. The federal idea owes
much to the United States and Australia. From the Irish Free State came the inspiration of
Part IV, which contains the Directive Principles of State Policy. The Idea of a detailed list
of Fundamental Rights, which form Part III of a Constitution, is derived from the United
States. Hence, the only originality that our constitution can claim consists in the freedom
of choice exercised by its authors in picking and choosing from the various constitutions
of the world.
Our Constitutions is, no doubt, drawn from a variety of sources, but its borrowings and
adaptations should, in no way, be little its value. For, the constitutional forms and
principles are not the ‘copyright materials’ patented by particular countries. Besides, the
fathers of the Indian Constitution did not pretend to produce anything new. Their primary
object was to produce a good and workable constitution. This object they achieved with a
commendable success.
The Fundamental Rights: The Indian Constitution its Part III embodies a set of
Fundamental Rights, which are guaranteed to all Indian Citizens and, in some cases, even
to those who are not Indian citizens. These rights ensure the fullest physical, mental and
moral development of an individual and provide those basic freedoms and conditions

221
which alone can make life worth living. They also provide standards of conduct,
citizenship justice and fair-play and preserve the blessing of liberty.
The Fundamental Rights guaranteed by the Indian Constitution are divided into seven
parts (i) the Right to equality, (ii) the Right of Freedom, (iii) the Right against
exploitation, (iv) the Right to Freedom of Religion, (v) Cultural and Educational Rights,
(vi) the Right of property, (vii) the Right to Constitutional Remedies. These rights secure
to all citizens equality before law, equality of opportunity, freedom of thought and
expressions security of property and freedom of vocation, residence, faith and belief.
Besides, these rights have been made justiciable. The citizens can demand their
enjoyment and the breaches of the same can be brought to the Notice of the law courts. It
is the duty of the courts to issue necessary orders, directions and writs for the
enforcement of the infringed rights. The fundamental right to property was abolished in
1977.
The Fundamental Rights are, however, not absolute. They are directly restricted by the
constitution, which prescribes various exceptions, limitations and qualifications.
Directive Principles of State Policy: The Directive Principles of State Policy form
another important feature of the Indian constitution. They lay down guidelines for state
policy and also the kind of social order, which has to be built up. They exhort the state to
ensure for its people, adequate means of livelihood, fair distribution of wealth, protection
of child and adult labour, decent standards of living, full enjoyment of leisure and social
and cultural opportunities, compulsory education and economic interests of the weaker
sections of the society etc. etc.
The general tendency of these Directives is, obviously, to introduce a wide measure of
socialism in the economic sphere, to provide social security and better standards of
sanitation to emphasise the duty towards women and children and the obligations towards
backward and Tribal classes.
The Directive Principles are, however, not enforceable by any court, nor the constitution
imposes any duty on the State to apply these principles in making any laws. Nevertheless,
their inclusion in the Constitution is not without value. They outline the ideal of a welfare
state. They stand the greatest guarantee for a genuine democracy in India. They provide
the real yard-stick to measure the social and economic progress of the Indian people.
They provide a code of conduct for the Indian administrators and legislators.
Single Citizenship: The Indian Constitution has established a single and uniform
citizenship for the whole of India. The citizens owe allegiance only to the Indian Union.
There is no second-class citizenship. This is in striking contrast to the system of double
citizenship that prevails in some of the federal states. For example, in the United States of
America a citizen of the Unite states is also a citizen of one of the constituent States. The
Indian Constitution does not recognise state citizenship. There is only one citizenship and

222
that is Indian citizenship. The provision of single citizenship is a great step forward in the
creation of an integrated Indian Society. As a result, the citizens of India are clothed with
common civil and political rights all over the country. Besides, a single citizenship
removes much of the artificial state barriers that prevailed in pre-independence days and
facilitates the freedom of trade, commerce and intercourse throughout the territory of
India.
Independence of Judiciary: The Judiciary under the Indian constitution is made
independent of the Executive and there are provisions in the Constitutional charter to
ensure its independence. The Constitution lays down rigid qualifications for the
appointment of the judges. The President of India is bound to consult the Chief Justice of
India in the appointment of every judge of the Supreme Court and the High Courts. The
judges are appointed till they reach the age of 65 or 62 and their conditions of service can
not be altered to their disadvantage. They are given high salaries and their conduct is
made a subject beyond the scope of discussion in the Legislatures. They can not be
removed from the office arbitrarily. The constitution provides strict procedure for their
removal. To make the judiciary independent, impartial and uncorruptible, our constitution
recommends separation of executive and judicial functions even at the lower levels.
The judiciary in India is noted for its independence, impartiality and integrity. ‘A review
of its achievements during the last 20 years reveals that it has worked as a watchdog of
the rights of the individuals. It has also helped to ensure the successful working of the
Parliamentary system of government in our country.’
Judicial Review: The Indian Constitution has specifically provided for (Art, 13, 32, 131,
136, 246) judicial revies. In the exercise of this power, the courts of law can declare the
constitutionality or otherwise of a legislative enactment. The provision of judicial review
in the Constitution is quite significant, and precisely for two reasons. In the first place, it
signifies that our constitution places confidence and trust in the judiciary to interpret its
provisions and to uphold its dignity. Secondly, ‘It negatives the plea that it is only the
elected representatives, who exclusively reflect the changing currents and reflexes of
public opinion, especially in a country, where the vast sections of electorate are
unlettered.’

223