British Raj
India | |
---|---|
1858–1947 | |
Anthem: "–1947) | |
Official languages | |
Demonym(s) | Indians, British Indians |
Government | British Colonial Government |
Queen/Queen-Empress/King-Emperor | |
• 1858–1876 (Queen); 1876–1901 (Queen-Empress) | Victoria |
• 1901–1910 | Edward VII |
• 1910–1936 | George V |
• 1936 | Edward VIII |
• 1936–1947 (last) | George VI |
Viceroy | |
• 1858–1862 (first) | Charles Canning |
• 1947 (last) | Louis Mountbatten |
Secretary of State | |
• 1858–1859 (first) | Edward Stanley |
• 1947 (last) | William Hare |
Legislature | Imperial Legislative Council |
History | |
10 May 1857 | |
2 August 1858 | |
18 July 1947 | |
took effect Midnight, 14–15 August 1947 | |
Currency | Indian rupee |
|
The British Raj (
As India, it was a founding member of the League of Nations, a participating state in the Summer Olympics in 1900, 1920, 1928, 1932, and 1936, and a founding member of the United Nations in San Francisco in 1945.[18]
This system of governance was instituted on 28 June 1858, when, after the
Geographical extent
The British Raj extended over almost all present-day India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh, except for small holdings by other European nations such as
Among other countries in the region, Ceylon, which was referred to coastal regions and northern part of the island at that time (now Sri Lanka) was ceded to Britain in 1802 under the Treaty of Amiens. These coastal regions were temporarily administered under Madras Presidency between 1793 and 1798,[24] but for later periods the British governors reported to London, and it was not part of the Raj. The kingdoms of Nepal and Bhutan, having fought wars with the British, subsequently signed treaties with them and were recognised by the British as independent states.[25][26] The Kingdom of Sikkim was established as a princely state after the Anglo-Sikkimese Treaty of 1861; however, the issue of sovereignty was left undefined.[27] The Maldive Islands were a British protectorate from 1887 to 1965, but not part of British India.[28]
-
The British Raj and surrounding countries are shown in 1909.
History
1858–1868: rebellion aftermath, critiques, and responses
-
Lakshmibai, Rani of Jhansi, one of the principal leaders of the Great Uprising of 1857, who had lost her kingdom by the Doctrine of lapse
-
The proclamation to the "Princes, Chiefs, and People of India", issued by Queen Victoria on 1 November 1858
-
Sir Syed Ahmed Khan founder of the Muhammadan Anglo-Oriental College, wrote one of the early critiques, The Causes of the Indian Mutiny.
-
An 1887 souvenir portrait of Queen Victoria asEmpress of India, 30 years after the Great Uprising
Although the Indian Rebellion of 1857 had shaken the British enterprise in India, it had not derailed it. Until 1857, the British, especially under Lord Dalhousie, had been hurriedly building an India which they envisaged to be on par with Britain itself in the quality and strength of its economic and social institutions. After the rebellion, they became more circumspect. Much thought was devoted to the causes of the rebellion and three main lessons were drawn. First, at a practical level, it was felt that there needed to be more communication and camaraderie between the British and Indians—not just between British army officers and their Indian staff but in civilian life as well.[29] The Indian army was completely reorganised: units composed of the Muslims and Brahmins of the United Provinces of Agra and Oudh, who had formed the core of the rebellion, were disbanded. New regiments, like the Sikhs and Baluchis, composed of Indians who, in British estimation, had demonstrated steadfastness, were formed. From then on, the Indian army was to remain unchanged in its organisation until 1947.[30] The 1861 Census had revealed that the English population in India was 125,945. Of these only about 41,862 were civilians as compared with about 84,083 European officers and men of the Army.[31] In 1880, the standing Indian Army consisted of 66,000 British soldiers, 130,000 Natives, and 350,000 soldiers in the princely armies.[32]
Second, it was also felt that both the princes and the large land-holders, by not joining the rebellion, had proved to be, in Lord Canning's words, "breakwaters in a storm".[29] They too were rewarded in the new British Raj by being integrated into the British-Indian political system and having their territories guaranteed.[33] At the same time, it was felt that the peasants, for whose benefit the large land reforms of the United Provinces had been undertaken, had shown disloyalty, by, in many cases, fighting for their former landlords against the British. Consequently, no more land reforms were implemented for the next 90 years: Bengal and Bihar were to remain the realms of large land holdings (unlike the Punjab and Uttar Pradesh).[34]
Third, the British felt disenchanted with Indian reaction to social change. Until the rebellion, they had enthusiastically pushed through social reform, like the ban on sati by Lord William Bentinck.[35] It was now felt that traditions and customs in India were too strong and too rigid to be changed easily; consequently, no more British social interventions were made, especially in matters dealing with religion,[36] even when the British felt very strongly about the issue (as in the instance of the remarriage of Hindu child widows).[37] This was exemplified further in Queen Victoria's Proclamation released immediately after the rebellion. The proclamation stated that 'We disclaim alike our Right and Desire to impose Our Convictions on any of Our Subjects';[38] demonstrating official British commitment to abstaining from social intervention in India.
1858–1880: railways, canals, Famine Code
-
The 1909 map of Indian Railways, the fourth largest in the world. Railway construction began in 1853.
-
Stereographic image ofBombay, completed in 1888
-
TheAgra canal(c. 1873), a year from completion, was closed to navigation in 1904 to increase irrigation during a famine.
-
Lord Ripon, the Liberal Viceroy of India, who instituted the Famine Code. 1880.
In the second half of the 19th century, both the direct administration of
The rush of technology was also changing the agricultural economy in India: by the last decade of the 19th century, a large fraction of some raw materials—not only cotton, but also some food-grains—were being exported to faraway markets.
1880s–1890s: middle class, Indian National Congress
-
Calcutta University
-
Congress,W. C. Bonerjee, and Pherozeshah Mehta.
-
Poverty and the Un-British Rule in India, 1901, by Naoroji, Member, British Parliament (1892–1895), and Congress president (1886, 1893, 1906)
-
Mehta, lawyer, businessman, and president of the sixth session of the Indian National Congress in 1890
By 1880, a new middle class had arisen in India and spread thinly across the country. Moreover, there was a growing solidarity among its members, created by the "joint stimuli of encouragement and irritation".[48] The encouragement felt by this class came from its success in education and its ability to avail itself of the benefits of that education such as employment in the Indian Civil Service. It came too from Queen Victoria's proclamation of 1858 in which she had declared, "We hold ourselves bound to the natives of our Indian territories by the same obligation of duty which bind us to all our other subjects."[49] Indians were especially encouraged when Canada was granted dominion status in 1867 and established an autonomous democratic constitution.[49] Lastly, the encouragement came from the work of contemporaneous Oriental scholars like Monier Monier-Williams and Max Müller, who in their works had been presenting ancient India as a great civilisation. Irritation, on the other hand, came not just from incidents of racial discrimination at the hands of the British in India, but also from governmental actions like the use of Indian troops in imperial campaigns (e.g. in the Second Anglo-Afghan War) and the attempts to control the vernacular press (e.g. in the Vernacular Press Act of 1878).[50]
It was, however, Viceroy
During its first 20 years, the Congress primarily debated British policy toward India. Its debates created a new Indian outlook that held Great Britain responsible for draining India of its wealth. Britain did this, the nationalists claimed, by unfair trade, by the restraint on indigenous Indian industry, and by the use of Indian taxes to pay the high salaries of the British civil servants in India.[52]
Thomas Baring served as Viceroy of India 1872–1876. Baring's major accomplishments came as an energetic reformer who was dedicated to upgrading the quality of government in the British Raj. He began large scale famine relief, reduced taxes, and overcame bureaucratic obstacles in an effort to reduce both starvation and widespread social unrest. Although appointed by a Liberal government, his policies were much the same as viceroys appointed by Conservative governments.[53]
Social reform was in the air by the 1880s. For example,
By 1905, a deep gulf opened between the moderates, led by Gokhale, who downplayed public agitation, and the new "extremists" who not only advocated agitation, but also regarded the pursuit of social reform as a distraction from nationalism. Prominent among the extremists was
1905–1911: Partition of Bengal, Swadeshi, violence
-
Viceroy of India, 1899–1905, who partitioned the Bengal Presidencyin 1905
-
Congress moderate Sir Surendranath Banerjee led the opposition with the Swadeshi movement.
-
Tamil magazine, Vijaya, 1909, showing "Mother India" with her progeny and the slogan "Vande Mataram"
The viceroy,
Trouble emerged for Curzon when he divided the largest administrative subdivision in British India, the Bengal Province, into the Muslim-majority province of Eastern Bengal and Assam and the Hindu-majority province of West Bengal (present-day Indian states of West Bengal, Bihar, and Odisha). Curzon's act, the Partition of Bengal, had been contemplated by various colonial administrations since the time of Lord William Bentinck, but was never acted upon. Though some considered it administratively felicitous, it was communally charged. It sowed the seeds of division among Indians in Bengal, transforming nationalist politics as nothing else before it. The Hindu elite of Bengal, among them many who owned land in East Bengal that was leased out to Muslim peasants, protested fervidly.[59]
Following the
The rallying cry for both types of protest was the slogan
1870s–1906: Muslim social movements, Muslim League
-
Minto-Morley Reformsof 1909 allowed separate Muslim electorates.
-
1909 Prevailing Religions, map of the British Indian Empire, 1909, showing the majority religions based on the Census of 1901
-
Hakim Ajmal Khan, a founder of the Muslim League, was to also become the president of the Indian National Congress in 1921.
The overwhelming, but predominantly Hindu, protest against the partition of Bengal and the fear in its wake of reforms favouring the Hindu majority, led the Muslim elite in India to meet with the new viceroy,
The first steps were taken toward self-government in British India in the late 19th century with the appointment of Indian counsellors to advise the British viceroy and the establishment of provincial councils with Indian members; the British subsequently widened participation in legislative councils with the
The
The partition of Bengal was rescinded in 1911 and announced at the Delhi Durbar at which King
1914–1918: First World War, Lucknow Pact, Home Rule leagues
-
Khudadad Khan, the first Indian to be awarded the Victoria Cross, hailed from Chakwal District, Punjab (present-day Pakistan).
-
Indian medical orderlies with the Mesopotamian Expeditionary Force in Mesopotamia during World War I
-
Annie Besant shown with the Theosophists in Adyar, Madras in 1912 four years before she founded an Indian Home Rule League[b]
-
Muhammad Ali Jinnah, seated, third from the left, supported the Lucknow Pact in 1916, ending the Muslim League-Congress rift.
The
At the onset of World War I, the reassignment of most of the British army in India to Europe and Mesopotamia, had led the previous viceroy, Lord Harding, to worry about the "risks involved in denuding India of troops".[71] Revolutionary violence had already been a concern in British India; consequently, in 1915, to strengthen its powers during what it saw was a time of increased vulnerability, the Government of India passed the Defence of India Act 1915, which allowed it to intern politically dangerous dissidents without due process, and added to the power it already had—under the 1910 Press Act—both to imprison journalists without trial and to censor the press.[73] It was under the Defence of India act that the Ali brothers were imprisoned in 1916, and Annie Besant, a European woman, and ordinarily more problematic to imprison, was arrested in 1917.[73] Now, as constitutional reform began to be discussed in earnest, the British began to consider how new moderate Indians could be brought into the fold of constitutional politics and, simultaneously, how the hand of established constitutionalists could be strengthened. However, since the Government of India wanted to ensure against any sabotage of the reform process by extremists, and since its reform plan was devised during a time when extremist violence had ebbed as a result of increased governmental control, it also began to consider how some of its wartime powers could be extended into peacetime.[73]
After the 1906 split between the moderates and the extremists in the Indian National Congress, organised political activity by the Congress had remained fragmented until 1914, when Bal Gangadhar Tilak was released from prison and began to sound out other Congress leaders about possible reunification. That, however, had to wait until the demise of Tilak's principal moderate opponents, Gopal Krishna Gokhale and Pherozeshah Mehta, in 1915, whereupon an agreement was reached for Tilak's ousted group to re-enter the Congress.[71] In the 1916 Lucknow session of the Congress, Tilak's supporters were able to push through a more radical resolution which asked for the British to declare that it was their "aim and intention ... to confer self-government on India at an early date".[71] Soon, other such rumblings began to appear in public pronouncements: in 1917, in the Imperial Legislative Council, Madan Mohan Malaviya spoke of the expectations the war had generated in India, "I venture to say that the war has put the clock ... fifty years forward ... (The) reforms after the war will have to be such, ... as will satisfy the aspirations of her (India's) people to take their legitimate part in the administration of their own country."[71]
The 1916 Lucknow Session of the Congress was also the venue of an unanticipated mutual effort by the Congress and the Muslim League, the occasion for which was provided by the wartime partnership between Germany and Turkey. Since the
During 1916, two
1915–1918: return of Gandhi
The year 1915 also saw the return of
Also, during his time in South Africa, in his essay, Hind Swaraj, (1909), Gandhi formulated his vision of
Gandhi made his political debut in India in 1917 in
1916–1919: Montagu–Chelmsford reforms
In 1916, in the face of new strength demonstrated by the nationalists with the signing of the Lucknow Pact and the founding of the Home Rule leagues, and the realisation, after the disaster in the Mesopotamian campaign, that the war would likely last longer, the new viceroy, Lord Chelmsford, cautioned that the Government of India needed to be more responsive to Indian opinion.[80] Towards the end of the year, after discussions with the government in London, he suggested that the British demonstrate their good faith—in light of the Indian war role—through a number of public actions, including awards of titles and honours to princes, granting of commissions in the army to Indians, and removal of the much-reviled cotton excise duty, but, most importantly, an announcement of Britain's future plans for India and an indication of some concrete steps. After more discussion, in August 1917, the new Liberal secretary of state for India, Edwin Montagu, announced the British aim of "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".[80] Although the plan envisioned limited self-government at first only in the provinces—with India emphatically within the British Empire—it represented the first British proposal for any form of representative government in a non-white colony.
Montagu and Chelmsford presented their report in July 1918 after a long fact-finding trip through India the previous winter.[81] After more discussion by the government and parliament in Britain, and another tour by the Franchise and Functions Committee for the purpose of identifying who among the Indian population could vote in future elections, the Government of India Act 1919 (also known as the Montagu–Chelmsford Reforms) was passed in December 1919.[81] The new Act enlarged both the provincial and Imperial legislative councils and repealed the Government of India's recourse to the "official majority" in unfavourable votes.[81] Although departments like defence, foreign affairs, criminal law, communications, and income-tax were retained by the Viceroy and the central government in New Delhi, other departments like public health, education, land-revenue, local self-government were transferred to the provinces.[81] The provinces themselves were now to be administered under a new diarchical system, whereby some areas like education, agriculture, infrastructure development, and local self-government became the preserve of Indian ministers and legislatures, and ultimately the Indian electorates, while others like irrigation, land-revenue, police, prisons, and control of media remained within the purview of the British governor and his executive council.[81] The new Act also made it easier for Indians to be admitted into the civil services and the army officer corps.
A greater number of Indians were now enfranchised, although, for voting at the national level, they constituted only 10% of the total adult male population, many of whom were still illiterate.
1917–1919: Rowlatt Act
In 1917, as Montagu and Chelmsford were compiling their report, a committee chaired by a British judge,
With the end of World War I, there was also a change in the economic climate. By the end of 1919, 1.5 million Indians had served in the armed services in either combatant or non-combatant roles, and India had provided £146 million in revenue for the war.
To combat what it saw as a coming crisis, the government now drafted the Rowlatt committee's recommendations into two
1919–1939: Jallianwala, non-cooperation, GOI Act 1935
-
Gandhi with Besant en route to a meeting inloin-clothin identification with India's poor.
-
Poster advertising a Congress non-co-operation "Public Meeting" and a "Bonfire of Foreign Clothes" in Bombay, early 1920s, and expressing support for the "Karachi Khilafat Conference"
-
Hindus and Muslims, with flags of Indian National Congress and the Muslim League, collecting clothes to be burnt as a part of the non-cooperation movement
-
Staff and students, National College, Lahore, founded in 1921 by Lala Lajpat Rai after the non-co-operation movement. Standing, fourth from right is Bhagat Singh.
The Jallianwala Bagh massacre or "Amritsar massacre", took place in the Jallianwala Bagh public garden in the predominantly Sikh northern city of Amritsar. After days of unrest Brigadier-General Reginald E.H. Dyer forbade public meetings and on Sunday 13 April 1919 fifty British Indian Army soldiers commanded by Dyer began shooting at an unarmed gathering of thousands of men, women, and children without warning. Casualty estimates vary widely, with the Government of India reporting 379 dead, with 1,100 wounded.[87] The Indian National Congress estimated three times the number of dead. Dyer was removed from duty but he became a celebrated hero in Britain among people with connections to the Raj.[88] Historians consider the episode was a decisive step towards the end of British rule in India.[89]
In 1920, after the British government refused to back down, Gandhi began his campaign of non-cooperation, prompting many Indians to return British awards and honours, to resign from the civil services, and to again boycott British goods. In addition, Gandhi reorganised the Congress, transforming it into a mass movement and opening its membership to even the poorest Indians. Although Gandhi halted the non-cooperation movement in 1922 after the violent incident at Chauri Chaura, the movement revived again, in the mid-1920s.
The visit, in 1928, of the British Simon Commission, charged with instituting constitutional reform in India, resulted in widespread protests throughout the country.[90] Earlier, in 1925, non-violent protests of the Congress had resumed too, this time in Gujarat, and led by Patel, who organised farmers to refuse payment of increased land taxes; the success of this protest, the Bardoli Satyagraha, brought Gandhi back into the fold of active politics.[90]
At its annual session in
In local terms, British control rested on the
In 1935, after the Round Table Conferences, Parliament passed the Government of India Act 1935, which authorised the establishment of independent legislative assemblies in all provinces of British India, the creation of a central government incorporating both the British provinces and the princely states, and the protection of Muslim minorities. The future Constitution of independent India was based on this act.[93] However, it divided the electorate into 19 religious and social categories, e.g., Muslims, Sikhs, Indian Christians, Depressed Classes, Landholders, Commerce and Industry, Europeans, Anglo-Indians, etc., each of which was given separate representation in the Provincial Legislative Assemblies. A voter could cast a vote only for candidates in his own category.[citation needed]
The 1935 Act provided for more autonomy for Indian provinces, with the goal of cooling off nationalist sentiment. The act provided for a national parliament and an executive branch under the purview of the British government, but the rulers of the princely states managed to block its implementation. These states remained under the full control of their hereditary rulers, with no popular government. To prepare for elections Congress built up its grass roots membership from 473,000 in 1935 to 4.5 million in 1939.[94]
In the
-
British prime minister, Ramsay MacDonald, three places to the right of Gandhi (to the viewer's left) at the 2nd Round Table Conference. Samuel Hoare is two places to Gandhi's right. Foreground, fourth from left, is B. R. Ambedkar representing the "Depressed Classes".
-
A second-day cancellation of the series "Inauguration of New Delhi", 27 February 1931, commemorating the new city designed by Sir Edwin Lutyens and Sir Herbert Baker
-
A first-day cover issued on 1 April 1937 commemorating the separation of Burma from the British Indian Empire
1939–1945: World War II
With the outbreak of World War II in 1939, the viceroy, Lord Linlithgow, declared war on India's behalf without consulting Indian leaders, leading the Congress provincial ministries to resign in protest. The Muslim League, in contrast, supported Britain in the war effort and maintained its control of the government in three major provinces, Bengal, Sind and the Punjab.[98]
While the Muslim League had been a small elite group in 1927 with only 1300 members, it grew rapidly once it became an organisation that reached out to the masses, reaching 500,000 members in Bengal in 1944, 200,000 in Punjab, and hundreds of thousands elsewhere.
The Congress was secular and strongly opposed to having any religious state.
[Islam and Hinduism] are not religions in the strict sense of the word, but are, in fact, different and distinct social orders and it is a dream that the Hindus and Muslims can ever evolve a common nationality ... The Hindu and Muslim belong to two different religions, philosophies, social customs and literature [sic]. They neither intermarry nor interdine together and indeed they belong to two different civilizations which are based mainly on conflicting ideas and conceptions. Their aspects on life and of life are different ... To yoke together two such nations under a single state, one as a numerical minority and the other as a majority must lead to growing discontent and final destruction of any fabric that may be so built up for the government of such a state.[104]
While the regular Indian army in 1939 included about 220,000 native troops, it expanded tenfold during the war,[105] and small naval and air force units were created. Over two million Indians volunteered for military service in the British Army. They played a major role in numerous campaigns, especially in the Middle East and North Africa. Casualties were moderate (in terms of the world war), with 24,000 killed; 64,000 wounded; 12,000 missing (probably dead), and 60,000 captured at Singapore in 1942.[106]
London paid most of the cost of the Indian Army, which had the effect of erasing India's national debt; it ended the war with a surplus of £1,300 million. In addition, heavy British spending on munitions produced in India (such as uniforms, rifles, machine-guns, field artillery, and ammunition) led to a rapid expansion of industrial output, such as textiles (up 16%), steel (up 18%), and chemicals (up 30%). Small warships were built, and an aircraft factory opened in Bangalore. The railway system, with 700,000 employees, was taxed to the limit as demand for transportation soared.[107]
The British government sent the
Congress launched the Quit India Movement in July 1942 demanding the immediate withdrawal of the British from India or face nationwide civil disobedience. On 8 August the Raj arrested all national, provincial and local Congress leaders, holding tens of thousands of them until 1945. The country erupted in violent demonstrations led by students and later by peasant political groups, especially in Eastern United Provinces, Bihar, and western Bengal. The large wartime British Army presence crushed the movement in a little more than six weeks;[109] nonetheless, a portion of the movement formed for a time an underground provisional government on the border with Nepal.[109] In other parts of India, the movement was less spontaneous and the protest less intensive; however, it lasted sporadically into the summer of 1943.[110]
Earlier,
Bose's effort, however, was short-lived. In mid-1944 the British Army first halted and then reversed the Japanese
-
Mahatma Gandhi (centre-right) and Rajendra Prasad (centre-left) on their way to meet the viceroy, Lord Linlithgow, on 13 October 1939, after the outbreak of World War II
-
Chaudhari Khaliquzzaman (left) seconding the 1940 Lahore Resolution of the Muslim League with Jinnah (right) presiding, and Liaquat Ali Khan(centre)
-
Newly arrived Indian troops on the quayside in Singapore, November 1941
-
Indian Army troops in action duringWestern Desert Campaignin North Africa in November/December 1941
1946–1947: Independence, Partition
In January 1946, a number of mutinies broke out in the armed services, starting with that of RAF servicemen frustrated with their slow repatriation to Britain.
Also in early 1946, new elections were called in India. Earlier, at the end of the war in 1945, the colonial government had announced the
Later that year, the British Exchequer exhausted by the recently concluded World War II, and the Labour government conscious that it had neither the mandate at home, the international support, nor the reliability of native forces for continuing to control an increasingly restless British India,[124][125] decided to end British rule of India, and in early 1947 Britain announced its intention of transferring power no later than June 1948.[98]
As independence approached, the violence between Hindus and Muslims in the provinces of Punjab and Bengal continued unabated. With the British army unprepared for the potential for increased violence, the new viceroy,
On 15 August 1947, the new
The great majority of Indians remained in place with independence, but in border areas millions of people (Muslim, Sikh, and Hindu) relocated across the newly drawn borders. In Punjab, where the new border lines divided the Sikh regions in half, there was much bloodshed; in Bengal and Bihar, where Gandhi's presence assuaged communal tempers, the violence was more limited. In all, somewhere between 250,000 and 500,000 people on both sides of the new borders, among both the refugee and resident populations of the three faiths, died in the violence.[129]
Timeline of major events, legislation, and public works
-
Two silver one rupee coins used in India during the British Raj, showing Victoria, Queen, 1862 (left) and Victoria, Empress, 1886 (right)
-
Silver one rupee coins showing Edward VII, King-Emperor, 1903 (left) and 1908 (right)
-
Silver one rupee coins used in India during the British Raj, showing George V, King-Emperor, 1913 (left) and 1919 (right)
-
One rupee coins showing George VI, King-Emperor, 1940 (left) and just before India's independence in 1947 (right)[c]
Period | Presiding Viceroy | Major events, legislation, public Works |
---|---|---|
1 November 1858 – 21 March 1862 |
Viscount Canning[130] | 1858 reorganisation of Imperial Police, later known as the Indian Police Service .
|
21 March 1862 – 20 November 1863 |
Earl of Elgin | Viceroy dies prematurely in Dharamsala in 1863
|
12 January 1864 – 12 January 1869 |
Sir John Lawrence, Bt[131] | annexed and incorporated into India 1869" |
12 January 1869 – 8 February 1872 |
Earl of Mayo[132] | Creation of Department of Agriculture (now Chief Commissionership (1872). Assassination of Lord Mayo in the Andamans. |
3 May 1872 – 12 April 1876 |
Lord Northbrook[132] | Deaths in Bihar famine of 1873–1874 prevented by import of rice from Burma. Gaikwad of Baroda dethroned for misgovernment; dominions continued to a child ruler.[clarification needed] Indian Councils Act of 1874 Visit of the Prince of Wales, the future Edward VII, in 1875–76. |
12 April 1876 – 8 June 1880 |
Lord Lytton | Empress of India at Delhi Durbar of 1877. .
Great Famine of 1876–1878: 5.25 million dead; reduced relief offered at expense of Rs. 80 million. Creation of Famine Commission of 1878–80 under Sir Richard Strachey. Indian Forest Act of 1878 Second Anglo-Afghan War |
8 June 1880 – 13 December 1884 |
Marquess of Ripon[133] | End of University of Punjab established in Lahore in 1882 . Creation of indigenous schools, especially for Muslims. Famine Code promulgated in 1883 by the Government of India. Creation of the Education Commission Repeal of import duties on cotton and of most tariffs. Railway extension. |
13 December 1884 – 10 December 1888 |
Earl of Dufferin[134][135] | Passage of Bengal Tenancy Bill The Great Game in full play. established in 1887 Report of Public Services Commission of 1886–87, creation of the Imperial Civil Service (later the Indian Civil Service (ICS), and today the Indian Administrative Service) University of Allahabad Queen Victoria's Jubilee, 1887. |
10 December 1888 – 11 October 1894 |
Marquess of Lansdowne[136] | Strengthening of NW Frontier defence. Creation of Siam finalised in 1893. Fall of the rupee, resulting from the steady depreciation of silver currency worldwide (1873–93). Indian Prisons Act of 1894 |
11 October 1894 – 6 January 1899 |
Earl of Elgin | Reorganisation of Indian Army (from Presidency System to the four Commands). Pamir agreement Russia, 1895 The Chitral Campaign (1895), the Tirah campaign (1896–97) Indian famine of 1896–1897 beginning in Bundelkhand. Bubonic plague in Bombay (1896), Bubonic plague in Calcutta (1898); riots in wake of plague prevention measures. Establishment of Provincial Legislative Councils in Burma and Punjab; the former a new Lieutenant Governorship. |
6 January 1899 – 18 November 1905 |
Lord Curzon of Kedleston[137][138] | Creation of the East Bengal and Assam under a Lieutenant-Governor.
Census of 1901 gives the total population at 294 million, including 62 million in the princely states and 232 million in British India.[139] About 170,000 are Europeans. 15 million men and 1 million women are literate. Of those school-aged, 25% of the boys and 3% of the girls attend. There are 207 million Hindus, and 63 million Muslims, along with 9 million Buddhists (in Burma), 3 million Christians, 2 million Sikhs, 1 million Jains, and 8.4 million who practise animism.[140] |
18 November 1905 – 23 November 1910 |
Earl of Minto[68] | Creation of the Anglo-Russian Convention of 1907 in 1910 (now Ministry of Education)
Indian Councils Act 1909 (also Minto–Morley Reforms) Appointment of Indian Factories Commission in 1909. Establishment of Department of Education |
23 November 1910 – 4 April 1916 |
Lord Hardinge of Penshurst | Visit of King Battle of Galliopoli, 1915–16
Passage of Defence of India Act 1915 |
4 April 1916 – 2 April 1921 |
Lord Chelmsford | University of Rangoon established in 1920. introduced
Indian Passport Act of 1920: British Indian passport |
2 April 1921 – 3 April 1926 |
Earl of Reading | University of Delhi established in 1922. Indian Workers Compensation Act of 1923 |
3 April 1926 – 18 April 1931 |
Lord Irwin |
Indian Trade Unions Act of 1926, Indian Forest Act, 1927 Appointment of Royal Commission of Indian Labour, 1929 Indian Constitutional Round Table Conferences, London, 1930–32, Gandhi–Irwin Pact, 1931. |
18 April 1931 – 18 April 1936 |
Earl of Willingdon | New Delhi inaugurated as capital of India, 1931. Indian Workmen's Compensation Act of 1933 Indian Factories Act of 1934 Royal Indian Air Force created in 1932. Indian Military Academy established in 1932. Government of India Act 1935 Creation of Reserve Bank of India |
18 April 1936 – 1 October 1943 |
Marquess of Linlithgow | Indian Payment of Wages Act of 1936 Burma administered independently after 1937 with creation of new cabinet position Battle of Singapore of World War II begins in 1942.
Burma campaign |
1 October 1943 – 21 February 1947 |
Viscount Wavell | British Labour Party wins UK General Election of 1945 with Clement Attlee becoming prime minister. 1946 Cabinet Mission to India Indian Elections of 1946. |
21 February 1947 – 15 August 1947 |
Viscount Mountbatten of Burma | Commonwealth Relations Office .
|
British India and the princely states
India during the British Raj was made up of two types of territory: British India and the Native States (or adopted the following definitions in Section 18:
(4.) The expression "British India" shall mean all territories and places within Her Majesty's dominions which are for the time being governed by Her Majesty through the Governor-General of India or through any governor or other officer subordinates to the Governor-General of India.
(5.) The expression "India" shall mean British India together with any territories of any native prince or chief under the suzerainty of Her Majesty exercised through the Governor-General of India, or through any governor or other officer subordinates to the Governor-General of India.[1]
In general, the term "British India" had been used (and is still used) to refer also to the regions under the rule of the British East India Company in India from 1600 to 1858.[142] The term has also been used to refer to the "British in India".[143]
The terms "Indian Empire" and "Empire of India" (like the term "British Empire") were not used in legislation. The monarch was officially known as Empress or Emperor of India and the term was often used in Queen Victoria's
Suzerainty over 175 princely states, some of the largest and most important, was exercised (in the name of the British Crown) by the central government of British India under the viceroy; the remaining approximately 500 states were dependents of the provincial governments of British India under a governor, lieutenant-governor, or chief commissioner (as the case might have been).[144] A clear distinction between "dominion" and "suzerainty" was supplied by the jurisdiction of the courts of law: the law of British India rested upon the laws passed by the British Parliament and the legislative powers those laws vested in the various governments of British India, both central and local; in contrast, the courts of the Princely States existed under the authority of the respective rulers of those states.[144]
Major provinces
At the turn of the 20th century, British India consisted of eight provinces that were administered either by a governor or a lieutenant-governor.
Province of British India (and present-day territories) |
Total area | Population in 1901 (millions) |
Chief administrative officer |
---|---|---|---|
Assam (Assam, Arunachal Pradesh, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland) |
130,000 km2 (50,000 sq mi) |
6 | Chief Commissioner
|
Odisha )
|
390,000 km2 (150,000 sq mi) |
75 | Lieutenant-Governor
|
Bombay (Sindh and parts of Maharashtra, Gujarat and Karnataka) |
320,000 km2 (120,000 sq mi) |
19 | Governor-in-Council
|
Burma (Myanmar) |
440,000 km2 (170,000 sq mi) |
9 | Lieutenant-Governor |
Central Provinces and Berar (Madhya Pradesh and parts of Maharashtra, Chhattisgarh and Odisha) |
270,000 km2 (100,000 sq mi) |
13 | Chief Commissioner
|
Madras (Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu and parts of Kerala, Karnataka, Odisha and Telangana) |
370,000 km2 (140,000 sq mi) |
38 | Governor-in-Council
|
National Capital Territory of Delhi )
|
250,000 km2 (97,000 sq mi) |
20 | Lieutenant-Governor
|
United Provinces (Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand) |
280,000 km2 (110,000 sq mi) |
48 | Lieutenant-Governor
|
During the partition of Bengal (1905–1913), the new provinces of Assam and East Bengal were created as a Lieutenant-Governorship. In 1911, East Bengal was reunited with Bengal, and the new provinces in the east became: Assam, Bengal, Bihar and Orissa.[145]
Minor provinces
In addition, there were a few minor provinces that were administered by a chief commissioner:[146]
Minor province of British India (and present day territories) |
Total area in km2 (sq mi) |
Population in 1901 (in thousands) |
Chief administrative officer |
---|---|---|---|
Ajmer-Merwara (parts of Rajasthan) |
7,000 (2,700) |
477 | ex officio Chief Commissioner |
Andaman and Nicobar Islands (Andaman and Nicobar Islands) |
78,000 (30,000) |
25 | Chief Commissioner |
British Baluchistan (Balochistan) |
120,000 (46,000) |
308 | ex officio Chief Commissioner |
Coorg Province (Kodagu district) |
4,100 (1,600) |
181 | ex officio Chief Commissioner |
North West Frontier Province )
(Khyber Pakhtunkhwa |
41,000 (16,000) |
2,125 | Chief Commissioner |
Princely states
A Princely State, also called a Native State or an Indian State, was a British
The princely states were grouped into agencies and residencies.
Organisation
Following the Indian Rebellion of 1857 (usually called the Indian Mutiny by the British), the Government of India Act 1858 made changes in the governance of India at three levels:
- in the imperial government in London,
- in the central government in Calcutta, and
- in the provincial governments in the presidencies (and later in the provinces).[150]
In London, it provided for a cabinet-level
In Calcutta, the
If the Government of India needed to enact new laws, the Councils Act allowed for a Legislative Council—an expansion of the Executive Council by up to twelve additional members, each appointed to a two-year term—with half the members consisting of British officials of the government (termed official) and allowed to vote, and the other half, comprising Indians and domiciled Britons in India (termed non-official) and serving only in an advisory capacity.
With the promulgation of the Government of India Act 1935, the Council of India was abolished with effect from 1 April 1937 and a modified system of government enacted. The secretary of state for India represented the Government of India in the UK. He was assisted by a body of advisers numbering from 8–12 individuals, at least half of whom were required to have held office in India for a minimum of 10 years, and had not relinquished office earlier than two years prior to their appointment as advisers to the secretary of state.[158]
The viceroy and governor-general of India, a Crown appointee, typically held office for five years though there was no fixed tenure, and received an annual salary of Rs. 250,800 p.a. (£18,810 p.a.).[158][159] He headed the Viceroy's Executive Council, each member of which had responsibility for a department of the central administration. From 1 April 1937, the position of Governor-General in Council, which the viceroy and governor-general concurrently held in the capacity of representing the Crown in relations with the Indian princely states, was replaced by the designation of "HM Representative for the Exercise of the Functions of the Crown in its Relations with the Indian States", or the "Crown Representative". The Executive Council was greatly expanded during the Second World War, and in 1947 comprised 14 members (secretaries), each of whom earned a salary of Rs. 66,000 p.a. (£4,950 p.a.). The portfolios in 1946–1947 were:
- External Affairs and Commonwealth Relations
- Home and Information and Broadcasting
- Food and transportation
- Transport and Railways
- Labour
- Industries and Supplies
- Works, Mines and Power
- Education
- Defence
- Finance
- Commerce
- Communications
- Health
- Law
Until 1946, the viceroy held the portfolio for External Affairs and Commonwealth Relations, as well as heading the Political Department in his capacity as the Crown representative. Each department was headed by a secretary excepting the Railway Department, which was headed by a Chief Commissioner of Railways under a secretary.[160]
The viceroy and governor-general was also the head of the bicameral Indian Legislature, consisting of an upper house (the Council of State) and a lower house (the Legislative Assembly). The viceroy was the head of the Council of State, while the Legislative Assembly, which was first opened in 1921, was headed by an elected president (appointed by the Viceroy from 1921 to 1925). The Council of State consisted of 58 members (32 elected, 26 nominated), while the Legislative Assembly comprised 141 members (26 nominated officials, 13 others nominated and 102 elected). The Council of State existed in five-year periods and the Legislative Assembly for three-year periods, though either could be dissolved earlier or later by the Viceroy. The Indian Legislature was empowered to make laws for all persons resident in British India including all British subjects resident in India, and for all British Indian subjects residing outside India. With the assent of the King-Emperor and after copies of a proposed enactment had been submitted to both houses of the British Parliament, the Viceroy could overrule the legislature and directly enact any measures in the perceived interests of British India or its residents if the need arose.[161]
Effective from 1 April 1936, the Government of India Act created the new provinces of Sind (separated from the Bombay Presidency) and Orissa (separated from the Province of Bihar and Orissa). Burma and Aden became separate Crown Colonies under the Act from 1 April 1937, thereby ceasing to be part of the Indian Empire. From 1937 onwards, British India was divided into 17 administrations: the three Presidencies of Madras, Bombay and Bengal, and the 14 provinces of the United Provinces, Punjab, Bihar, the Central Provinces and Berar, Assam, the North-West Frontier Province (NWFP), Orissa, Sind, British Baluchistan, Delhi, Ajmer-Merwara, Coorg, the Andaman and Nicobar Islands and Panth Piploda. The Presidencies and the first eight provinces were each under a governor, while the latter six provinces were each under a chief commissioner. The viceroy directly governed the chief commissioner provinces through each respective chief commissioner, while the Presidencies and the provinces under governors were allowed greater autonomy under the Government of India Act.[162][163] Each Presidency or province headed by a governor had either a provincial bicameral legislature (in the Presidencies, the United Provinces, Bihar and Assam) or a unicameral legislature (in the Punjab, Central Provinces and Berar, NWFP, Orissa and Sind). The governor of each presidency or province represented the Crown in his capacity, and was assisted by a ministers appointed from the members of each provincial legislature. Each provincial legislature had a life of five years, barring any special circumstances such as wartime conditions. All bills passed by the provincial legislature were either signed or rejected by the governor, who could also issue proclamations or promulgate ordinances while the legislature was in recess, as the need arose.[163]
Each province or presidency comprised a number of divisions, each headed by a
Legal system
Singha argues that after 1857 the colonial government strengthened and expanded its infrastructure via the court system, legal procedures, and statutes. New legislation merged the Crown and the old East India Company courts and introduced a new penal code as well as new codes of civil and criminal procedure, based largely on English law. In the 1860s–1880s the Raj set up compulsory registration of births, deaths, and marriages, as well as adoptions, property deeds, and wills. The goal was to create a stable, usable public record and verifiable identities. However, there was opposition from both Muslim and Hindu elements who complained that the new procedures for census-taking and registration threatened to uncover female privacy. Purdah rules prohibited women from saying their husband's name or having their photograph taken. An all-India census was conducted between 1868 and 1871, often using total numbers of females in a household rather than individual names. Select groups which the Raj reformers wanted to monitor statistically included those reputed to practice female infanticide, prostitutes, lepers, and eunuchs.[164]
Murshid argues that women were in some ways more restricted by the modernisation of the laws. They remained tied to the strictures of their religion, caste, and customs, but now with an overlay of British Victorian attitudes. Their inheritance rights to own and manage property were curtailed; the new English laws were somewhat harsher. Court rulings restricted the rights of second wives and their children regarding inheritance. A woman had to belong to either a father or a husband to have any rights.[165]
Economy
Economic trends
All three sectors of the economy—agriculture, manufacturing, and services—accelerated in the postcolonial India. In agriculture a huge increase in production took place in the 1870s. The most important difference between colonial and postcolonial India was the use of land surplus with productivity-led growth by using high-yielding variety seeds, chemical fertilizers and more intensive application of water. All these three inputs were subsidised by the state.[166] The result was, on average, no long-term change in per capita income levels, though cost of living had grown higher. Agriculture was still dominant, with most peasants at the subsistence level. Extensive irrigation systems were built, providing an impetus for switching to cash crops for export and for raw materials for Indian industry, especially jute, cotton, sugarcane, coffee and tea.[167] India's global share of GDP fell drastically from above 20% to less than 5% in the colonial period.[168] Historians have been bitterly divided on issues of economic history, with the Nationalist school (following Nehru) arguing that India was poorer at the end of British rule than at the beginning and that impoverishment occurred because of the British.[169]
Mike Davis writes that much of the economic activity in British India was for the benefit of the British economy and was carried out relentlessly through repressive British imperial policies and with negative repercussions for the Indian population. This is reified in India's large exports of wheat to Britain: despite a major famine that claimed between 6 and 10 million lives in the late 1870s, these exports remained unchecked. A colonial government committed to laissez-faire economics refused to interfere with these exports or provide any relief.[170]
Industry
With the end of the state-granted monopoly of the
The entrepreneur Jamsetji Tata (1839–1904) began his industrial career in 1877 with the Central India Spinning, Weaving, and Manufacturing Company in Bombay. While other Indian mills produced cheap coarse yarn (and later cloth) using local short-staple cotton and cheap machinery imported from Britain, Tata did much better by importing expensive longer-stapled cotton from Egypt and buying more complex ring-spindle machinery from the United States to spin finer yarn that could compete with imports from Britain.[172]
In the 1890s, he launched plans to move into heavy industry using Indian funding. The Raj did not provide capital, but, aware of Britain's declining position against the US and Germany in the steel industry, it wanted steel mills in India. It promised to purchase any surplus steel Tata could not otherwise sell.[173] The Tata Iron and Steel Company (TISCO), now headed by his son Dorabji Tata (1859–1932), began constructing its plant at Jamshedpur in Bihar in 1908, using American technology, not British.[174] According to The Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, TISCO became the leading iron and steel producer in India, and "a symbol of Indian technical skill, managerial competence, and entrepreneurial flair".[172] The Tata family, like most of India's big businessmen, were Indian nationalists but did not trust the Congress because it seemed too aggressively hostile to the Raj, too socialist, and too supportive of trade unions.[175]
Railways
British India built a modern railway system in the late 19th century, which was the fourth largest in the world. At first the railways were privately owned and operated. They were run by British administrators, engineers and craftsmen. At first, only the unskilled workers were Indians.[176]
The East India Company (and later the colonial government) encouraged new railway companies backed by private investors under a scheme that would provide land and guarantee an annual return of up to 5% during the initial years of operation. The companies were to build and operate the lines under a 99-year lease, with the government having the option to buy them earlier.
In 1854, Governor-General
After the Sepoy Rebellion in 1857, and subsequent Crown rule over India, the railways were seen as a strategic defense of the European population, allowing the military to move quickly to subdue native unrest and protect Britons.[182] The railway thus served as a tool of the colonial government to control India as they were "an essential strategic, defensive, subjugators and administrative 'tool'" for the Imperial Project.[183]
Most of the railway construction was done by Indian companies supervised by British engineers.
Headrick shows that until the 1930s, both the Raj lines and the private companies hired only European supervisors, civil engineers, and even operating personnel, such as locomotive engineers. The hard physical labor was left to the Indians. The colonial government was chiefly concerned with the welfare of European workers, and any Indian deaths were "either ignored or merely mentioned as a cold statistical figure."[188][189] The government's Stores Policy required that bids on railway contracts be made to the India Office in London, shutting out most Indian firms.[187] The railway companies purchased most of their hardware and parts in Britain. There were railway maintenance workshops in India, but they were rarely allowed to manufacture or repair locomotives.[190]
After independence in 1947, forty-two separate railway systems, including thirty-two lines owned by the former Indian princely states, were amalgamated to form a single nationalised unit named the Indian Railways.
India provides an example of the British Empire pouring its money and expertise into a very well-built system designed for military purposes (after the Rebellion of 1857), in the hope that it would stimulate industry. The system was overbuilt and too expensive for the small amount of freight traffic it carried. Christensen (1996), who looked at colonial purpose, local needs, capital, service, and private-versus-public interests, concluded that making the railways a creature of the state hindered success because railway expenses had to go through the same time-consuming and political budgeting process as did all other state expenses. Railway costs could therefore not be tailored to the current needs of the railways or of their passengers.[191]
Irrigation
The British Raj invested heavily in infrastructure, including canals and irrigation systems.
By the 1870s the peasantry in the districts irrigated by the Ganges Canal were visibly better fed, housed and dressed than before; by the end of the century the new network of canals in the Punjab had produced an even more prosperous peasantry there.
Policies
In the second half of the 19th century, both the direct administration of India by the
Taxes in India decreased during the colonial period for most of India's population; with the land tax revenue claiming 15% of India's national income during Mughal times compared with 1% at the end of the colonial period. The percentage of national income for the village economy increased from 44% during Mughal times to 54% by the end of colonial period. India's per capita GDP decreased from 1990
Economic impact of the Raj
Historians continue to debate whether the long-term intention of British rule was to accelerate the economic development of India, or to distort and delay it. In 1780, the conservative British politician
P. J. Marshall shows that recent scholarship has reinterpreted the view that the prosperity of the formerly benign Mughal rule gave way to poverty and anarchy.[202] He argues the British takeover did not make any sharp break with the past, which largely delegated control to regional Mughal rulers and sustained a generally prosperous economy for the rest of the 18th century. Marshall notes the British went into partnership with Indian bankers and raised revenue through local tax administrators and kept the old Mughal rates of taxation.
The East India Company inherited an onerous taxation system that took one-third of the produce of Indian cultivators.[200] Instead of the Indian nationalist account of the British as alien aggressors, seizing power by brute force and impoverishing all of India, Marshall presents the interpretation (supported by many scholars in India and the West) that the British were not in full control but instead were players in what was primarily an Indian play and in which their rise to power depended upon excellent co-operation with Indian elites.[202] Marshall admits that much of his interpretation is still highly controversial among many historians.[203]
Studies suggest that from 1765 to 1938 around $45 trillion was stolen by the British as a result of their direct control of India.[204][205][206]
Demography
The population of the territory that became the British Raj was 100 million by 1600 and remained nearly stationary until the 19th century. The population of the Raj reached 255 million according to the first census taken in 1881 of India.[207][208][209][210]
Studies of India's population since 1881 have focused on such topics as total population, birth and death rates, growth rates, geographic distribution, literacy, the rural and urban divide, cities of a million, and the three cities with populations over eight million:
Mortality rates fell in the 1920–1945 era, primarily due to biological immunisation. Other factors included rising incomes and better living conditions, improved nutrition, a safer and cleaner environment, and better official health policies and medical care.[212]
Severe overcrowding in the cities caused major public health problems, as noted in an official report from 1938:[213]
- In the urban and industrial areas ... cramped sites, the high values of land and the necessity for the worker to live in the vicinity of his work ... all tend to intensify congestion and overcrowding. In the busiest centres houses are built close together, eave touching eave, and frequently back to back .... Space is so valuable that, in place of streets and roads, winding lanes provide the only approach to the houses. Neglect of sanitation is often evidenced by heaps of rotting garbage and pools of sewage, whilst the absence of latrines enhance the general pollution of air and soil.
Religion
Religion | 1891 | |
---|---|---|
Pop. | % | |
Brahmanic | 207,731,727 | 72% |
Musalman ( Muslim )
|
57,321,164 | 20% |
Animistic | 9,280,467 | 3% |
Buddhist | 7,131,361 | 2% |
Christian | 2,284,380 | 1% |
Jain | 1,416,638 | 0.5% |
Zoroastrian | 89,904 | 0.03% |
Jew | 17,194 | 0.01% |
Others | 42,763 | |
Total population | 287,223,431 | 100% |
Religion | 1921 | |
---|---|---|
Pop. | % | |
Hindus | 216,734,586 | 69% |
Mussulmans | 68,735,233 | 22% |
Animists | 9,774,611 | 3% |
Buddhist | 11,571,268 | 4% |
Christians | 4,754,064 | 2% |
Jains | 1,178,596 | 0.4% |
Sikhs | 3,238,803 | 1% |
Total population | 316,128,721 | 100% |
Famines, epidemics, and public health
This article duplicates the scope of other articles, specifically Timeline of major famines in India during British rule. to the article. (May 2017) |
Famine | Years | Deaths (in millions) |
---|---|---|
Great Bengal Famine | 1769–1770 | 10[217]
|
Chalisa famine | 1783–1784 | 11[218]
|
Doji bara famine | 1789–1795 | 11[219]
|
Agra famine of 1837–38
|
1837–1838 | 0.8[220]
|
Eastern Rajputana | 1860–1861 | |
Orissa famine of 1866 | 1865–1867 | |
Rajputana famine of 1869 | 1868–1870 | 1.5[222]
|
Bihar famine of 1873–74
|
1873–1874 | 0
|
Great Famine of 1876–78
|
1876–1878 | 10.3[223]
|
Odisha, Bihar | 1888–1889 | 0.15[224]
|
Indian famine of 1896–97
|
1896–1897 | |
Indian famine of 1899–1900 | 1899–1900 | 4.5[220]
|
Bengal famine of 1943 | 1943–1944 | |
Total (1765–1947)[226][227][228] | 1769–1944 | 64.48 |
During the British Raj, India experienced some of the worst famines ever recorded, including the Great Famine of 1876–1878, in which 6.1 million to 10.39 million Indians perished[229] and the Indian famine of 1899–1900, in which 1.25 to 10 million Indians perished.[230] Recent research, including work by Mike Davis and Amartya Sen,[231] argue that famines in India were made more severe by British policies in India.
The first cholera pandemic began in Bengal, then spread across India by 1820. Ten thousand British troops and countless Indians died during this pandemic.[citation needed] Estimated deaths in India between 1817 and 1860 exceeded 15 million. Another 23 million died between 1865 and 1917.[232] The Third plague pandemic which started in China in the middle of the 19th century, eventually spread to all inhabited continents and killed 10 million Indians in India alone.[233] Waldemar Haffkine, who mainly worked in India, became the first microbiologist to develop and deploy vaccines against cholera and bubonic plague. In 1925 the Plague Laboratory in Bombay was renamed the Haffkine Institute.
Fevers ranked as one of the leading causes of death in India in the 19th century.
In 1881 there were around 120,000
Sir
Massacre of Indian civilians by British troops
This section is in prose. is available. (February 2024) |
This is the list of civilian massacre of Indians, in most cases unarmed peaceful crowds, by the British colonial troops.
- Brigadier General R. E. H. Dyer's troops[242] massacred 379 to more than 1,500 unarmed peaceful civilians,[243] and wounded over 1,200 other Indian civilians.[244] The level of casual brutality, and lack of any accountability, stunned the entire nation,[245] resulting in a wrenching loss of faith of the general Indian public in the intentions of the United Kingdom.[246]
- Munshiganj Raebareli massacre on 7 January 1921 at Munshiganj in Raebareli in Uttar Pradesh:[247] The official death toll of Indian farmers is shown minimal by the British historians whereas other estimates put the death toll in the hundreds,[247] causing the nearby Sai river turn red from the blood.[248]
- Salanga massacre[249] on 27 January 1922 in Salanga bazaar in Raiganj Upazila in then-Bengal province & present-day Bangladesh:[250] The police opened fire killing hundreds,[251] deathtoll ranged from 1,500 to 4,500 people.[252] A mass graveyard remains near Salanga Bazar at Rahmatganj,[252] where Salanga Day is commemorated annually on 27 January in the memory of victims.[249]
- Takkar massacre on 28 May 1930 at Takkar in Mardan tehsil in North-West Frontier Province of British India: When local villagers attempted to stop soldiers from arresting freedom fighter activists of the Khudai Khidmatgar movement, in the ensuing shooting an English police officer called Murphy was killed, three days later, a large force of British colonial troops attacked the village in retaliation,[256] killing 70 and wounding another 150 people in the massacre. A monument has been built in the memory of victims.[257]
Education
Thomas Babington Macaulay (1800–1859) presented his Whiggish interpretation of English history as an upward progression always leading to more liberty and more progress. Macaulay simultaneously was a leading reformer involved in transforming the educational system of India. He would base it on the English language so that India could join the mother country in a steady upward progress. Macaulay took Burke's emphasis on moral rule and implemented it in actual school reforms, giving the British Empire a profound moral mission to "civilise the natives".
Yale professor Karuna Mantena has argued that the civilising mission did not last long, for she says that benevolent reformers were the losers in key debates, such as those following the 1857 rebellion in India, and the scandal of Edward Eyre's brutal repression of the Morant Bay rebellion in Jamaica in 1865. The rhetoric continued but it became an alibi for British misrule and racism. No longer was it believed that the natives could truly make progress, instead, they had to be ruled by heavy hand, with democratic opportunities postponed indefinitely. As a result:
The central tenets of liberal imperialism were challenged as various forms of rebellion, resistance and instability in the colonies precipitated a broad-ranging reassessment....the equation of 'good government' with the reform of native society, which was at the core of the discourse of liberal empire, would be subject to mounting scepticism.[259]
English historian Peter Cain, has challenged Mantena, arguing that the imperialists truly believed that British rule would bring to the subjects the benefits of 'ordered liberty', thereby Britain could fulfil its moral duty and achieve its own greatness. Much of the debate took place in Britain itself, and the imperialists worked hard to convince the general population that the civilising mission was well under-way. This campaign served to strengthen imperial support at home, and thus, says Cain, to bolster the moral authority of the gentlemanly elites who ran the Empire.[260]
Universities in Calcutta, Bombay, and Madras were established in 1857, just before the Rebellion. By 1890 some 60,000 Indians had matriculated, chiefly in the liberal arts or law. About a third entered public administration, and another third became lawyers. The result was a very well educated professional state bureaucracy. By 1887 of 21,000 mid-level civil services appointments, 45% were held by Hindus, 7% by Muslims, 19% by Eurasians (European father and Indian mother), and 29% by Europeans. Of the 1000 top-level civil services positions, almost all were held by Britons, typically with an Oxbridge degree.[261] The government, often working with local philanthropists, opened 186 universities and colleges of higher education by 1911; they enrolled 36,000 students (over 90% men). By 1939 the number of institutions had doubled and enrolment reached 145,000. The curriculum followed classical British standards of the sort set by Oxford and Cambridge and stressed English literature and European history. Nevertheless, by the 1920s the student bodies had become hotbeds of Indian nationalism.[262]
Missionary work
In 1889, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, Robert Gascoyne-Cecil, 3rd Marquess of Salisbury stated, "It is not only our duty but is in our interest to promote the diffusion of Christianity as far as possible throughout the length and breadth of India".[264]
The growth of the
Missionaries from other
Legacy
The old consensus among historians held that British imperial authority was quite secure from 1858 to World War II. Recently, however, this interpretation has been challenged. For example, Mark Condos and Jon Wilson argue that imperial authority was chronically insecure. Indeed, the anxiety of generations of officials produced a chaotic administration with minimal coherence. Instead of a confident state capable of acting as it chose, these historians find a psychologically embattled one incapable of acting except in the abstract, small scale, or short term. Meanwhile, Durba Ghosh offers an alternative approach.[277]
Ideological impact
At independence and after the independence of India, the country has maintained such central British institutions as parliamentary government, one-person, one-vote and the rule of law through nonpartisan courts.
Cultural impact
The British colonisation of India influenced
British sports (particularly hockey early on, but then largely replaced by cricket in recent decades, with football also popular in certain regions of the subcontinent)[283][284] were cemented as part of South Asian culture during the British Raj, with the traditional games of India largely having been diminished in the process.[285] During the Raj, soldiers would play British sports as a way of maintaining fitness, since the mortality rate for foreigners in India was high at the time, as well as to maintain a sense of Britishness; in the words of an anonymous writer, playing British sports was a way for soldiers to "defend themselves from the magic of the land".[286] Though the British had generally excluded Indians from their play during the time of Company rule, over time they began to see the inculcation of British sports among the native populace as a way of spreading British values.[286][287] At the same time, some of the Indian elite began to move towards British sports as a way of adapting to British culture and thus helping themselves to rise up the ranks;[288][289] later on, more Indians began to play British sports in an effort to beat the British at their own sports,[290] as a way of proving that the Indians were equal to their colonisers.[291]
See also
Colonial India | ||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
History of South Asia | |
---|---|
(330–323 BC) | |
Maurya Empire | (321–184 BC) |
Seleucid India | (312–303 BC) |
Sangam period | (c. 600 BC – c. 300 AD) |
Pandya Empire | (c. 300 BC – AD 1345) |
Chera Kingdom | (c. 300 BC – AD 1102) |
Chola Empire | (c. 300 BC – AD 1279) |
Pallava Empire | (c. 250 AD – AD 800) |
Maha-Megha-Vahana Empire | (c. 250 BC – c. AD 500) |
Parthian Empire | (247 BC – AD 224) |