British Empire - Asia - India

10/24/2016
British Empire: Asia: India
Search this Site
Initial Contacts with the British

The Portugese were actually the first European power to come
into contact with India when Vasco de Gama sailed into Calicut
in 1498. After that date, Portugese ships would frequently return
to Europe laden with spices and commodities that would fetch
fabulous prices. Other European powers looked enviously at this
stream of exotica coming from the Orient. Portugal managed to
hold on to its preeminent position largely in part to the Treaty of
Tordesillas of 1494. This treaty had been created to divide the
New Worlds between the Catholic countries of Portugal and
Spain. In effect they had carved up these New Worlds with
Spain receiving a monopoly of power in most of South America
and Portugal in the Indies. Working together, the two Catholic
countries were able to maintain an effective blockade of these
new markets for the majority of the sixteenth century.
The lure of potential wealth of the East was too much for the
rising Protestant powers of England and Holland. The English
began to look for a Northern route to the Indies. The Treaty of
Tordesillas specifically stated that Portugese and Spanish
monopolies were only in effect south of the Cape Verde Islands.
An English company was chartered to undertake just such an
expedition. in 1553 Sir Hugh Willoughby set off to find the
Northern Passage to India. Two years later the crew were found
dead on the Siberian coastline. It dawned on the English that
there was no northern route to the Indies. Therefore an
alternative scheme was hatched. In 1554, a royal charter was
granted to the Muscovy company. This company was set up to
explore the possibility of trade through Russia to Persia.
Although economically expensive to transport goods this way,
the company did actually achieve a modicum of success and
allowed some Indian products to be transported back to
Northern Europe. The company actually survived until the latter
stages of the eighteenth century.
http://www.britishempire.co.uk/maproom/india.htm
Imperial Flag
More maps of India
Governors of India
1774 - 1947
Significant Individuals
1774 - 1947
Images
1/33
10/24/2016
Ships would always prove to be a more economically viable way

of trading with India. And, as the English could not directly trade
with India, its sailors resorted to buccaneering and piracy of the
Portugese ships as they headed to Europe with their fabulously
valuable cargoes. It was with the era of Drake and Cavendish
looting and shooting their way around the world that the first
cracks appeared in the Catholic monopoly. In fact, it was
Drake's victory over the Spanish Armada in 1588 that really
opened the floodgates. The Navies of the Catholic countries
were no longer strong enough to ensure an effective blockade of
their New Worlds. English and Dutch ships began to pass the
Cape of Good Hope in increasing numbers. Both nations quickly
established Chartered companies to exploit the commercial
possiblities presented to them. The English East India Company
was established in 1600. The EIC would lead the vanguard for
British political power in India.
Establishment of Formal Relations
Initial EIC approaches to the Mughal Emperors were brushed
off with disdain. This was partly due to the residual influence of
Portugese Jesuit advisers who sought to frustrate Protestant
England's attempts at making inroads into this part of the world.
However, it was also due to the fact that the English had no
products of value to the Mughals. The English at this time did not
produce anything that was even remotely of interest to what was
effectively an Indian superpower. This would remain the case for
many years to come and would force the English to trade
precious gold and silver for the spices and commodoties of
India.
The breakthrough in negotiations came when the English
demonstrated the one aspect that the Mughals did appreciate;
raw military power. In 1612, Captain Best entered the busy
harbour of Surat in his ship The Red Dragon. Four Portugese
galleons and a number of Portugese frigates attempted to repel
the English ship. When this one English ship dispersed the entire
fleet of Portugese ships, the Indians were impressed. English
stock rose and that of the Portugese fell. Although in truth, the
more important fact was that by this time the English had
surpassed the Portugese in terms of maritime technology and
technique. The Portugese would never again seriously rival the
power of the English at sea.
Images of Imperial India

National Archive India Images
Portraying India
Company School Paintings
Raj Letterhead Crests

1857 - 1947
Audio
Witness: Salt March
A BBC audio program about Gandhi's
famous march
Video
Delhi (1938) - Jack ...
1938 Delhi
Captain Best's victory opened the door for King James'

ambassador, Sir Thomas Roe, to attend the court of Emperor
2/33
10/24/2016
Jahangir in 1616. Sir Thomas Roe was painfully aware of the

mismatch in power between the two respective powers and
found negotiations with the Mughals tedious and difficult at the
best of times. However, after nearly three years of haggling, he
managed to gain permission for the EIC to build a factory at the
port of Surat. However, this was on the condition that EIC ships
escort Mughal vessels on their annual pilgrim to Mecca.
This first English toe-hold on the Indian sub-continent would
prove to be vitally important as relations broke down with the
Dutch. In 1623, the Dutch executed 10 English merchants for
conspiracy to overthrow their fortress in Amboina in the Indies
of the Spice Islands. This soured relations to such an extent that
the EIC were forced to abandon their bases throughout the
Indies. They were compelled to consolidate their power and fall
back to Surat. At the time, this was a devastating blow for the
EIC as they watched their Dutch counterparts thrive on their
Spice Islands' monopoly. However, with hindsight, it allowed the
English to cultivate economic and political relations with an area
of the world that would ultimately dwarf the wealth and power
provided by the Spice Islands.
The EIC may not have appreciated the significance of these
events for the Company's future, but the next century provided
the EIC with an opportunity to expand and consolidate their
power base in India. Factories were opened up in Madras,
Bombay and Calcutta. Fairly insignificant ports at the time, these
three factories would ultimately turn these trading posts into
hugely important urban ports. In the following century, British
power would emanate from these small enclaves to engulf most
of the sub-continent.
Not everything was to be plain sailing for the EIC. To the horror
of the company, Charles I granted another Charter to a rival
company led by Sir William Courten. Even worse for the EIC,
this rival resorted to piracy of Mughal vessels and left EIC
officials to pick up the pieces. The EIC were severely punished
after one such incident. This competition led to a dimunition in
the value of EIC stock and there was serious discussion of
withdrawing from the sub-continent altogether. It was not until
the Charles I had literally lost his head and been replaced by
Oliver Cromwell that the EIC saw its reckless competitor's
Charter being revoked. In fact, Oliver Cromwell ushered in two
reforms that would transform and revitalise what had been an
ailing EIC. First of all in 1654, a treaty was drawn up with
Portugal which would allow English ships to have full access to
12:51
CWGC Video explaining the contribution

of Indian Soldiers to Britain's Campaigns
in WW1
Cambridge University: Centre of South
Asian Studies: Film Archive
Timeline
1498
Vasco da Gama is first European to

reach India by sea
1526
Mughal Dominance begins after

victory at Panipat
1553
Sir Hugh Willoughby leads attempt

to discover northern route to India
The Muscovy Company created.

1554 Granted a Charter to conduct trade
between Russia and Persia
1600
English East India Company

Established
1612
Red Dragon enters Surat and

defeats Portugese
1616
Sir Thomas Roe attends Emperor

Jahangir's Court
1619
EIC granted permission to build

factory at Surat
1640
EIC establishes Fort St George in

Madras
1661
Bombay passes to Charles II as a

Dowry
1696 Calcutta founded as Fort William

Moghul power wanes as
1720 Muhammed Shah accedes to the
throne in Delhi
1746 French capture Madras from British
British attack Pondicherry. Treaty of
1748 Aix-la-Chapelle returns Madras to
Britain
Clive takes and holds Arcot to
1751 forestall French imposition of a
puppet leader
Clive wins Battle of Plassey 1757 restores British rule in and around
Calcutta
1760
EIC replaces Mir Jafar with Mir

Kasim in Bengal
British take Pondicherry from
3/33
10/24/2016
all Portugese ports in Asia. This effectively concluded any

residual power behind the Treaty of Tordesillas. Secondly,
Cromwell inaugurated the first permanent joint stock subscription
to the EIC. This replenished the EIC coffers and would allow it
to continue buying Indian commodoties with gold and silver.
Fortunately for the EIC the restoration of the Crown in England
did not compromise the EIC in the eyes of the new king and
Charles II was content to preside over what would become a
golden age of trade for the EIC.
1761 French
1764 Mughals defeated at Buxar
1766
EIC agrees to pay HM Government

#400000 for use of British forces
1773
Bank of England bales out EIC with

#1m loan
1775
First Maratha War
1782
1784
Ideally, the EIC would have liked their commercial relationship

with the sub-continent to remain just that; commercial. However,
one of England's age-old rivals appeared on the scene and
increasingly began to dabble in Indian politics. The French were
relative late comers to the Indian sub-continent, and for most of
the early part of the eighteenth century, they were more than
content to limit their interests to commercial activity. Besides,
their island bases at Mauritius and Bourbon gave the French East
India Company a real competitive advantage over their English
rival. That all changed with the appointment of Joseph Dupleix in
Pondicherry in 1741. He would embark on meddling in Indian
local affairs to a level unprecendented by any former European
power. Dupleix was long familiar with the Indian ways of
conducting business. He had already spent twenty years on the
sub-continent as a trading merchant. Now, in a position of
considerable local power, he embarked on a policy of expanding
French power in India at the expense of Britain. The war of
Austrian Succession gave Dupleix his excuse to summon the
French fleet from Mauritius and to capture Madras from the
British. This set off a chain of events that taught even Dupleix a
lesson in how powerful he had actually become. The nawab of
the Carnatic insisted that Dupleix hand back Madras to the
Carnatic. When Dupleix refused, the Nawab sent 10,000
soldiers to forcibly retake it. Dupleix could only muster 230
French soldiers and 700 Sepoys. However, their superior
firepower and discipline allowed them to defeat this huge Indian
army. The result of this battle was to decisively shift the balance
of power to the Europeans. In addition, Dupleix had become the
effective Nawab of the Carnatic.
Had Dupleix received more direct support from France, he
would almost certainly have been capable of turning India into a
French concern. Fortunately for the British, the Treaty of Aix-laChapelle returned Madras back to the British. The French had
missed their opportunity to dominate the sub-continent. As it
was, the person who learnt the most from Dupleix's machinations
India Act sets up Board of Control

to oversee EIC rule in India
1803
Second Maratha War
-5
1817
Third Maratha War
- 18
1839
First Afghan War
- 42
1857 Indian Mutiny
Suggested Reading
The Rains Came
by Louis Bromfield
Uncivil Servant: John Butter in India,
Pakistan, Kenya and Abu Dhabi
by John Butter
The Last Mughal
by William Dalrymple
White Mughals
by William Dalrymple
The Indian Mutiny, 1857
by Saul David
Last Children of the Raj: British
Childhoods in India: Vols 1 and II
by Laurence Fleming
Farewell Raj
by Tony Hearne
The Great Mutiny
by Christopher Hibbert
The Iconography Of Independence:
Freedoms At Midnight
edited by Robert Holland
Raj: The Making and Unmaking of British
India
by Lawrence James
The Honourable East India Company
by John Keay
4/33
10/24/2016
was a young EIC writer named Robert Clive.

It did not take Clive long to put the lessons learnt from Dupleix
into action. Almost immediately, he took advantage of a dispute
between the Nawab of the Carnatic, Chanda Sahib - who had
been installed by Dupleix, and Muhammad Ali who claimed that
he was the rightful Nawab of the Carnatic. Chanda Sahib formed
a vast army and marched to Trichinopoly and laid seige to
Muhammad Ali's garrison. Clive, taking advantage of the
situation, led a small expedition of 200 Englishmen and 300
sepoys over 100 miles to Chanda Sahib's capital of Arcot. Clive
had correctly anticipated the fact that Chanda Sahib would have
all but vacated his capital city in order to pursue his vendetta
against Muhammad Ali. This left Arcot open for Clive's men to
do as they wished. It forced Chanda Sahib to all but lift the siege
of Trichonopoly and return to besiege his own capital. In fact,
the Marathas also turned against the hapless Chanda Sahib and
sent an army to relieve both Clive and Trichonopoly. Clive had
made his reputation as a daring general and became the effective
Nawab broker of the Carnatic. He duly installed Muhammad Ali
as the Nawab of the Carnatic. Additional fallout from this
venture was the fact that Dupleix was recalled to France. His
political adventures had cost the French company dearly in
financial and political terms.
The Seven Years war would provide Clive with another excuse
to extend British power in India. The focus of his endeavours
shifted from Madras to Fort William (Calcutta). The nawab of
Bengal, Siraj-ad-Daula, learned that the British were building
fortifications at Fort William in order to defend themselves from
possible French attack. He ordered the British to cease building.
When they refused, he gathered an army of 50,000 soldiers and
descended on the small garrison of 1,000 British soldiers, many
of whom escaped to nearby ships. The remainder of the garrison
surrendered when realising that the powder for their antiquated
guns had become damp and unusable. Siraj's victorious army
gave Britain an excuse for moral outrage by what has become
known as 'The Black Hole of Calcutta'. This is where a number
of prisoners were placed in a room too small to hold them. The
resulting deaths led to the creation of Imperial martyrs and gave
British soldiers a carte blanche excuse to do whatever it took to
avenge their deaths.
Clive and a fleet of warships were despatched from Madras.
The warships bombarded the French base at Chandranagar
whilst Clive led an attack on the French fortress at Hughli. This
A Political Legacy Of The British Empire:

Power And The Parliamentary System In
Post-Colonial India And Sri Lanka
by Harshan Kumarasingham
The Red Fort
by James Leasor
Calcutta
by Geoffrey Moorhouse
Villiers-Stuart on the Frontier, 1894-1914
by Robert Maxwell
India Britannica (Paladin Books)
by Geoffrey Moorhouse
Who was Who in British India
by John F. Riddick
The Complete Indian Housekeeper and
Cook (Oxford World's Classics)
by F.A. Steel and G. Gardiner
Envoy Of The Raj: Career Of Sir Clarmont
Percival Skrine
by John Stewart
Companion to the Indian Mutiny
by P Taylor
Night Fall's on Siva's Hill
by Edward Thompson
Our Bones are Scattered
by Andrew Ward
Colonial Educators - The British Indian
And Colonial Education Service, 1858
-1983
by Clive Whitehead
A Passage from India: Reminiscences
by Richard Henry Wollocombe
Through the Indian Mutiny
by William Wright
Bengal Lancer
by Francis Yeats-Brown
Articles
The Indian Civil Service
by Ann Ewing
Art and Nationalism in India
by Partha Mitter
British Views of India
5/33
10/24/2016
removed French influence from the region of Bengal. Clive then

turned his attention on Siraj. Clive found a suitable replacement
Nawab, Mir Jafar. He also found allies in the form of Hindu
bankers who were willing to bribe Siraj's soldiers not to fight.
Then on June 23rd 1757, Clive met the 50,000 army of Siraj
with only 700 European soldiers and some 2,000 Sepoys. This
battle has gone down in history as one of the turning points in
Indian history. Although the events of the day were a little more
on the squalid side. Mir Jafar defected with many of Siraj's men
midway through the battle, most of Siraj's troops had been paid
not to risk their life or limb. Those who did fight were
overwhelmed by the ferocity of Clive's superior firepower and
with the resolve of the men using it. The battle itself may not have
been historic, but its results were. Clive installed Mir Jafar as
ruler, he awarded himself the lion's share of the financial spoils
and granted himself a substantial area of land. Not only had the
EIC gained financially, but the Nawab, by granting so much land
to gain his position, had denuded his treasury of funds. It was not
too long before Mir Jafar stood down to be replaced by another
Nawab - willing to grant yet more land for the privilege of
becoming ruler.
by R.W. Lightbown
A Tradition Created: Indo-Saracenic
Architecture under the Raj
by Thomas R. Metcalf
The Indian National Congress
by Francis Robinson
The Bungalow: An Indian Contribution to
the West
by Anthony King
Links about India

Bengal Famine 1770
eyewitness account
India
Full (abridged) history written by Victor
Surridge in 1909
The Story of Lord Clive
Full (abridged) history written by Beatrice
Home in 1911
Films
Lives of a Bengal Lancer
Far Pavilions
Jewel in the Crown
British ascendency was confirmed in 1764 when the remnants of

the Mughal emperors amassed their armies in a last attempt to
rid India of the British once and for all. The remains of the
Mughals were comprehensively defeated by the much smaller
force of Major Hector Munro. This victory, more than Plassey,
sealed the fate of the Indian continent once and for all. In fact,
there was nothing to stop the British force from then marching
directly to Delhi and proclaiming itself as the new Empire for
India. Instead, they took the more cautious route of hiding
behind whatever legitimacy the Mughal empire might have had.
They agreed to pay a paltry 230,000 pounds annually to the
Emperor in return for the rights to the revenue of Bengal, Bihar
and Orissa in perpetuity. Of course, the EIC did not volunteer to
take over the civil administration of these regions. For the EIC,
this was the best of all world's; Power without Responsibility.
Lagaan: Once upon a time in India
EIC Administration
Heat and Dust
Although power without responsibility was useful for the EIC, it

was anything but for the Indians who found themselves under
EIC administration. Early direct EIC rule of their provinces was
characterised as a time of almost lawlessness. The revenues that
EIC officials were collecting were being rapidly repatriated back
to Britain - this left the Indian officials with no means to pay for
The Tiger and the Flame
Staying On
The Deceivers
Gunga Din
A Passage to India
Gandhi
The Legend of Bhagat Singh
Jinnah
Check
For Imperial India Items
6/33
10/24/2016
their judicial system. From the British government's point of view,

this was leading to an extremely bad press. And even worse than
this was the fact that it was the EIC officials who were getting
rich off of this system. As individuals were making fortunes for
themselves, the EIC itself was in dire straits economically. The
company never got to see the vast majority of the revenues
collected in India. The financial problems of the EIC came to
public prominence in the 1770s, when the EIC first of all
defaulted on payments for use of British armed services and then
was forced to ask the British government for a one million pound
loan to keep the company going. Many people in Britain were
incensed that so many EIC officials were coming back to Britain
as incredibly wealthy individuals, but that the British government
would have to bail out the company itself. The loan was
reluctantly forwarded to the company in 1773 but it had strict
provisions that directly involved the British government in EIC
affairs for the first time - at least on a formal basis. They
established a Supreme Court in Calcutta to which Indians also
had recourse and which could even make appeals to the Privy
Court in London. The Crown was also to appoint members to a
Supreme Council which could advise the newly created post of
Governor General of Bengal. Efforts were also made to stamp
out official profiteering - although these measures were less
successful.
The EIC had successfully used their significant presence in
Westminster to avoid direct Crown rule in India. However, EIC
administration was still more concerned with revenue collection
than for the betterment of civil society in the sub-continent. This
made perfect sense to the EIC, but sat uneasily with many of the
more liberal sentiments coming out of Britain at the time. In fact,
little more than a decade later, the British parliament found that it
had to scrutinise EIC activities in India to an even greater extent.
The result was the creation of a 'Board of Control' in 1784
whose president was a member of the Cabinet and was directly
answerable to parliament. This Act still left the day to day
running of the provinces to EIC officials on the ground - however
it was clear that the British Government was being drawn further
and further into the administrative affairs of India. In fact, the first
Governor General of Bengal, Warren Hastings, resigned almost
immediately when he discovered that the Board of Control had
power to force any Governor General to resign.
Warren's successor, Lord Cornwallis, ushered in a period of
profound reform in company rule of India. Cornwallis' honesty
and integrity saw his administration remove all officials
7/33
10/24/2016
considered to be corrupt or disreputable. He professionalised

and increased the salaries of the civil service in an attempt to
remove temptation for corruption. He introduced revenue
reforms that were designed to simplify revenue collection - but
would also create an Indian gentry of sorts. This artificially
created class would later become staunch defenders of the
British Empire and would be instrumental in preventing the
spread of rebellion in the middle of the following century.
Cornwallis also reformed the military wing of the EIC by
Europeanising its officer corps. This effectively barred Indians
from advancement to commissioned status. This particular rule
proved to be one of the more pernicious rules and one that may
explain much of the snobbery and disdain that was to follow in
the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Perhaps the most
important of Cornwallis' reforms were what became known as
the 48 regulations. These basically formally accepted EIC
responsibility for civil services and the judicial system. It may
have been a peculiarly British legal system, but it was better than
none at all - which had been the case for the previous four
decades. These reforms would shape not only the remaining half
century of EIC control of India, but much of the subsequent Raj
as well.
In fact, one of the major aspects of EIC control in India is how it
slowly and surely shifted from being a trading company to an
administrative arm of the British Government. Trade became less
and less important as tax collecting took increasing precedence
within the company. Part of this transformation was the removal
of the privileged monopoly rights that had been granted to the
EIC way back in the seventeenth century. The British
government passed acts in both 1813 and 1833 which effectively
withdrew these privileges. However, there was an element of
compensation built into these Acts and the EIC was effectively
subsidised to collect taxes. The distinction between EIC rule and
British rule was becoming increasingly hazy as the century wore
on. It is hard to say whether this effective 'privatised imperialism'
would have continued throughout the century or whether it would
have naturally transferred itself to government rule anyway. This
question would remain an academic one as the north of India
would unexpectedly test the EIC to destruction and force the
British Government to become directly involved in the
subcontinent. These convulsions were what has become known
as 'The Indian Mutiny.'
Mutiny
8/33
10/24/2016
The administration of Governor General Lord Dalhousie was

hailed as the apogee of Company rule. His 1848 - 1856 tenure
would prove to be an uncommonly interventionist and
expansionist period of EIC rule. Indeed, these would be halcyon
days for the EIC before being plunged into a desperate battle for
survival as a minor military mutiny spread into a full scale
rebellion.
In fact, it was the increasing tendency of the EIC to intervene
and expand in internal Indian affairs and princedoms that led to
the rebellion in the first place. Lord Dalhousie was only following
along with one of the major mid-nineteenth century political
philosophies; that of utilitarianism. Lord Bentinck had really got
the ball rolling as he tried to rein in some of the more unpalatable
of Indian traditions; ritual murder (Thuggee), female infanticide,
widow burning (suttee) and slavery. At the time, it seemed as if
many Indians supported these aims. With hindsight, it would
appear that they deeply resented tampering with traditions that
went back thousands of years, however unpalatable those
traditions might have been. They perceived British tampering in
their social order as proof that the British wished to forcibly
convert Hindus and Muslims alike to Christianity. British
utilitarian reforming zeal combined with increasing Christian
missionary activity helped to form this unlikely alliance of Hindu
and Muslim sepoys.
Lord Dalhousie's expansionist policies also helped to foster
resentment. In fact, the majority of the mutiny took place in areas
of India that the EIC had barely ruled for little more than a
decade. Lord Dalhousie had instituted a reform entitled 'Doctrine
of Lapse'. Basically, this doctrine held that if any ruler died
without a suitable heir, control of the princedom would pass to
company rule. Now, not only did this doctrine attack a long held
Indian tradition of adopting an heir, it also managed to offend
virtually every ruling family on the sub-continent. They would all
now feel vulnerable to EIC control. And rightfully so as minor
and major principalities began to be picked up by the company;
Jhansi, Satara, Nagpur and Oudh were all absorbed into EIC
India. Again, Hindu and Muslim leaders were equally
discriminated against by this policy. In fact, Dalhousie felt so
confident of EIC power on the sub-continent that he even
refused to accept an heir for the Mughal emperor Bahadur Shah
unless the imperial title be renounced. Dabbling in Indian internal
affairs had taken on dangerous proportions.
The EIC had supplied the powder for an insurrection and they
9/33
10/24/2016
also happily provided the match. The introduction of a new

cartridge for the army entailed the biting off of their ends.
Unfortunately, there were rumours (quite correctly at first) that
these cartridges had been greased with animal fat. There was no
way of telling if this fat was from a cow (offending the Hindus) or
from a pig (offending the Muslims). Again, the EIC had managed
to offend both sections of society. As regiment after regiment
refused to use the new cartridges, discipline began to break
down. Three cavalry regiments at Meerut broke out into full
scale mutiny. Soon, at cantonments throughout the north of India,
regiment after regiment followed suit. Any European was
considered fair game as many sepoys headed towards Delhi to
'restore' Bahadur Shah to the throne of Mughal India.
The events of the mutiny are detailed elsewhere on this site.
Suffice it to say that the initial atrocities were more than amply
matched by the indignant British soldiers rushed to India from all
corners of the Empire. The British were actually fortunate that
the mutiny did not engender a deeper and more widespread
rising. Many, indeed most, Indians either stood on the sidelines
or actively supported the British. Most of the rebels were drawn
from the company army. Rebel support was also found amongst
the landowners in the recently annexed province of Oudh and
from dispossessed or threatened princes. However, it never
ignited support from the masses. Although, there were plenty of
hangers on who were keen to take advantage of the break down
in civil administration. Anarchy in large swathes of northern India
was one of the main results of the mutiny.
A key plank of support for the British was from the Zamindars
and the gentry artificially created by Cornwallis some half century
before. A number of Indians realised that their positions and
fortunes were dependent upon the continued rule of the British.
The British were therefore able to contain the spread of much of
the rebellion. The British were also helped by the lack of a
coordinated command structure amongst the rebels. Once they
had mutinied, most rebels were content to loot a little, head
towards Delhi, wait a little and then go home. When attacked,
the rebels defended stoutly. However, they were reluctant to
attack British forces of any consequence.
Back in Britain, reaction to the slaughter of British men, women
and children was hysterical. The British government was unable
to resist the pressure for major political reform once order had
been restored. In November 1858, the Act for the Better
Government of India was passed. It replaced the EIC with direct
10/33
10/24/2016
rule from Britain. John Company had been replaced by the Raj.
Raj Administration
After the Indian Mutiny, the
Governors-General became known as
Viceroys, to mark the transfer of
power from the East India Company
to the Crown. They had won a new
grandeur; but they lost their near
absolute power. By then steamships
were in use and the overseas route to
India was in full operation. Passengers
and mail went by steamship to
Alexandria and then up the Nile to
Punjab Lieutenant Governor
Cairo and across the desert to Suez in
closed vans, very bumpy and uncomfortable; at Suez they
embarked in a new ship and might be in Calcutta within about
two months of leaving London. The time for the journey was
halved again when the Suez Canal was opened in 1869. In
1870, the Red Sea submarine cable brought the Viceroy so
close to London that he could no longer ignore even temporarily
the views of the government in Britain. Parliament periodically
reviewed Indian affairs, always reducing a little the independence
of the Indian government and asserting a little more clearly their
own control. But legal control would have been no use without
physical means of asserting Parliament's will, and the physical
steps followed the legal; step by step, distance was reduced and
control became more of a reality.
After the Mutiny, four Viceroys in succession - Lawrence,
Mayo, Northbrook and Lytton - found their talents challenged in
particular by the problem of the North-West Froritier. The first
two were able to operate successfully within the limits imposed
by their position, largely because the parties in Britain did not
differ in principle. But the policies of the parties diverged
increasingly and changes in government in England forced the
second two to resign.
Sir John Lawrence, who resolutely refused to perform the
ornamental functions of Viceroy, was an excellent administrator,
in the same tradition as Dalhousie. Blunt, truthful, honest, as
exacting to his subordinates as to himself, but a loyal supporter
of those who accepted his own gospel of unremitting work, he
was a commanding rather than an endearing figure.
In foreign policy, Lawrence had always been a "close frontier"
11/33
10/24/2016
man, believing that to entangle ourselves in Afghanistan would be

likely to prove as calamitous as it had been in Auckland's time.
As to the Russians, he agreed with much military Opinion that, if
they should ever attack India, it would be far better to let them
first waste their strength on the difficult advance through the
mountains. Let the Russians, not the British, operate a long line
of communications through tribes who counted their wealth in
rifles and looked on killing as the proper duty of man! But this
view was not universal in India, still less in England, where there
was an anxious obsession with the Russian advance in Asia.
While the British had advanced 1,500 miles, from Madras to
Peshawar, the Russians had moved 2,000 miles to the frontiers
of Afghanistan. A Russian advance through a hostile Afghanistan
was one thing; it would be quite another if the Russians had such
influence in Afghanistan that they could build up a base in Kabul
and advance on India from that.
Lawrence's policy was described, first in mockery by his
opponents, later in praise by his friends, as one of "masterly
inactivity." His successor, Lord Mayo, was more positive; he met
the Amir, Sher Ali, at Amballa and explained his policy. The days
of annexation were past; we had no such ambitions. But we did
want a strong Afghanistan with a stable ruler, friendly to us and
independent of Russia - and therefore we would help the Amir
when he was in need, with money, arms, perhaps even men. And
we would use diplomatic pressure to make Russia respect
Afghan territory. This policy was broadly acceptable to both the
British parties: Mayo had been appointed by Disraeli but served
under Gladstone. But his successor, Lord Northbrook, was
Gladstone's man, and his emphasis as Viceroy was on peace, on
sound administration, on keeping expenditure below income,
preventing famine, lowering taxes, at all of which he was quietly
successful. In 1873, the Amir, Sher Ali, alarmed by a Russian
move forward, begged Northbrook for a closer alliance.
Northbrook, harking back to the policy of masterly inactivity,
refused. Sher Ali therefore felt he could not afford to rebuff
Russia so firmly as before. Meanwhile, in Europe, Disraeli was in
power and a Russian move towards the Balkans had almost led
to war. The British government felt that Russia should be
checked in Asia and proposed to move troops up to the Afghan
frontier and demand from Sher Ali the presence of British agents
at Kandahar and Herat as well as Kabul. Northbrook disliked
imperial chess; he demurred, remembering his own refusal of a
closer alliance and knowing that Sher Ali would regard this as
highly provocative. The Afghans had not forgotten Auckland's
war and believed that a British Resident at Kabul would be an
12/33
10/24/2016
interference in their affairs and the prelude to annexation. There

was thils a major difference of view between the Viceroy and the
home government, and soon another arose. Northbrook's
government, in the interests of Indian trade, had Disraeli's
government, in the interests of Lancashire, demanded that they
should be taken off. Northbrook resigned.. Lord Lytton, a
professional diplomat, took his place in 1876. He entered
enthusiastically into Disraeli's views, but, as Northbrook had
foreseen, Sher Ali could not accept a British Resident at Kabul
and retain the confidence of his people. The Second Afghan War
followed; Sher Ali died, his son made peace on British terms and
a Resident was sent to Kabul. But there was a popular rising and
the Resident was murdered with his escort within six weeks of
his arrival. Once again the British found themselves supporting an
Amir whose people rejected him as a puppet; once again, they
had to bring him to India and keep him as a pensioned exile. The
aggressive policy of Disraeli and Lytton had failed . Disraeli went
out of office in 1880, and so sharp had been parliamentary
criticism of his Afghan policy, and Lytton's execution of it, that
Lytton had no alternative but to resign too. Thus two Viceroys in
succession had demonstrated how close the connection with the
government in Britain had become.
Lord Ripon, who succeeded Lytton, was fortunate to find an
Afghan chief, Abdur Rahman, who was strong enough to
establish himself at Kabul and unite his country once more. He
kept it peaceful for 20 years, with a subsidy from the British but
no Resident at Kabul and no "peaceful penetration" by such
means as roads or telegraphs. In the Second Afghan War, as in
the First, the Afghans had in the end got their way.
Ripon was a Liberal of Gladstone's school and his administration
marked the beginning of a cautious advance towards a more
democratic system of government, chiefly in the realm of local
government. But he suffered one serious set-back, which
underlined another limitation on the Viceroy's power, a force that
was steadily to decline but could not wholly be ignored. This was
the opinion of Europeans, particularly of businessmen in
Calcutta. In most of India, a sessions judge of Indian birth was
debarred from trying a European; Ripon and his advisers
regarded this as unjust and humiliating and proposed in a
measure known as the Ilbert Bill to abolish the distinction. There
was an outraged howl from the Calcutta Press, which received
some covert support from the services. Ripon eventually gave in
to this clamour and modified the bill, providing that a European
could claim trial by a jury, of whom half must be Europeans. But
13/33
10/24/2016
this made a new distinction on grounds of race and emphasized

the fact that Indians were not tried by jury, but by a sessions
judge, helped by assessors whose views he could disregard if he
wished.
Nonetheless, Ripon's Viceroyalty, from 1880 to 1884, indicated
to Indians that there was a belief in Britain that free institutions
must in the end be applied to India and it led to the formation in
1885, with some British support, of the Indian National
Congress. Thus it was the beginning of national awakening and
the effort for independence. There had been sharp contrast
between Northbrook and Lytton, between Lytton and Ripon.
But it had been due to differences in policy in London and
underlined the Viceroy's position as agent of the British Cabinet.
Now came a period in which differences between the parties in
Britain were, at any rate on Indian affairs, less acute. The terms
of the three Viceroys who led up to Lord Curzon were
correspondingly placid. Indian nationalism grew fast; year by
year Indians became more ready to take for themselves the kind
of steps which the school of Dalhousie had wished to thrust upon
them. There was a minor constitutional advance; skirmishes took
place on the frontier; Upper Burma was annexed. But in
retrospect it was an uneventful period. The great machine
pounded smoothly on its well-oiled way. Messengers brought
piles of locked boxes to Viceregal Lodge and toiled back with
them to the Secretariat next day ; the Viceregal court observed
its own peculiar protocol. Visitors to Simla, if they belonged to
the official hierarchy or if, although outside it, they considered
themselves sufficiently important, hired a rickshaw or rode on a
horse to Viceregal Lodge; here at the gatehouse, under the eyes
of magnificent scarlet-coated sentries and messengers, they
wrote their names in His Excellency's book and left cards for His
Excellency's staff ~ virtually a request for Viceregal hospitality.
The Viceregal staff sorted the applicants into those deserving
invitations to lunch, to dinner, to a ball or to a garden-party, and
in due course the invitations went out. The guests would be
greeted by aides-decamp and eventually marshalled for His
Excellency's entry. Each would be introduced by the Aide-deCamp in Waiting and would bow or curtsy; then each male
would lead in his appointed partner to his appointed place. There
he would sit, scrupulously dividing his smiles and conversation
between his two neighbours until it was time to move to sofas.
Now the most important lady who .had not sat next to the
Viceroy at dinner would be led up to his sofa for five minutes'
conversation, after which she would be led away and another
14/33
10/24/2016
would take her place. And this would go on till His Excellency
escaped to his office boxes or to bed. The Viceroy had also to
show India that he really existed and at the same time convince
himself of the reality of the land he ruled. When he went on tour and this normally took up a good deal of a Viceroy's year - he
was still pursued by files, though not in such overwhelming bulk.
The Viceregal saloons would in these latter days carry him and
his staff swiftly and comfortably across India but at his
destination there would still be the ceremonial receptions; there
would be experimental farms to inspect, universities and hospitals
and exhibitions to open ; his host would also have arranged tigershoots, polo matches and displays of tent-pegging. The Viceroy
had to show himself at the racecourse if he went to a provincial
capital; he must appear in public at parades and in processions if
he went to visit an Indian prince. Every Head of State must
perform some of these decorative functions, but few give so
much of their time as the Viceroy was expected to give and few
Heads of State are also Prime Minister and Minister for Foreign
Affairs. It seems possible that from the time of, say, Lord Ripon
onwards, the immense effort involved in this exercise in public
relations was directed to the wrong audience. It was directed to
English officials, to the businessmen of Calcutta, to the Army, to
the princes of India - but not noticeably to the new Indian middle
classes and the products of the new universities, who were the
people of the future .
In 1899, India received the most regal of modern Viceroys,
Lord Curzon. He saw himself as the supreme embodiment of
imperial authority ; he was, like Dalhousie, determined to reform
India from the top. His remarkable story will be told in issue 60
of this history. But neither he, nor the last nine Viceroys who
followed him, ending in 1948 with Lord Mountbatten, could
escape the hard reality that by the 20th Century the Viceroy had
become virtually an extension into Asia of the British Cabinet
rather than an absolute monarch. The Viceroy could hardly help
sharing London's insensitivity to Indian opinion. And in fact for
this reason, it can be argued that the inactive Viceroys were the
most successful. In the Indian system the best District Officer
was the man who was idle but alert, ready to let his subordinates
do their own work so long as they told him what they were doing
and kept to his general line. The Viceroy was a District Officer
writ large was the same thing perhaps true of him?
British India at the turn of the Twentieth Century
It was George Curzon whose controversial viceroyship straddled
15/33
10/24/2016
the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. While Indians were taxed

by the British to support the Raj, a generous 40% of these taxes
were spent on the police and army. This figure contrasted with
only 10% devoted to welfare, utilities, health and education.
Such spending on security was perhaps necessitated by evident
discontent amongst Britain's subjects. In 1871 Viceroy Mayo
had been murdered by a Muslim Indian. In 1897 the Plague
Commissioner, Rand, was murdered by a Hindu Brahmin. The
same year brought a boycott of British institutions in Bombay, the
murder of its soldiers there and the destruction of a hospital.
Three years later Cawnpore suffered similar damage and deaths.
Anti-British outlets were particularly evident in Bengal, north
eastern India, with the formation of the Indian Association of
Calcutta and revolutionary newspapers (such as Yugantar and
Bangabasi).
In an attempt to stifle Bengali nationalist fervour, Viceroy Curzon
partitioned the province to create a Bengali minority in (new)
Bengal and a Muslim majority East Bengal. Curzon's measures
to counter discontent failed. Instead, in 1906, the All India
Muslim League (AIML) was formed and, more seriously,
terrorist cells (samiti) were established to undermine British rule;
the District Magistrate of Dacca, B.C. Allen, was murdered in
1907 and, in 1909, Sir William Wyllie of the India Office was
shot dead on a London street. Bal Tilak came to form the New
Party in response to the Bengal Partition; in doing so, he created
a radical nationalist wing within the Indian National Congress.
This Congress was an elite political forum (established in 1885)
which was designed to influence, and even cooperate with,
British rule. Instead, Tilak and his followers picketed government
offices and boycotted British goods.
The British made some concession to Indian concerns: not only
was Bengal re-united (in 1911) but 1909's Indian Councils Act
allowed for the election of Indians to various law-making
councils. To protect India's minorities, however, a system of
reserved council seats and a separate Muslim electorate was
established. In this way, the Act allotted seats to Indian Muslims
on both municipal and district boards. Such a concession to
India's Muslim leadership (i.e. AIML) was to be repeated in
later Anglo-Indian relations. Arguably, the idea of 'separateness'
exemplified a British tactic of divide and rule: it certainly
promoted communalism and undermined any unified HinduMuslim sense of Indian nationhood.
Whether the British Raj was based on concession or repression,
16/33
10/24/2016
it would be fair to say that any Indian organization or leadership

to topple British government was lacking at the turn of the
twentieth century. Interestingly, in order to reduce the risk of a
repeat mutiny, Indian soldiers were used across the wider
empire: in 1882 for example, 7,000 were used to help suppress
Arabi Pasha's Revolt in Egypt. The outbreak of World War I,
however, was to further stretch Indian involvement and to shake
the very foundations of imperialism.
India and World War One
The assassination of Austrian Archduke Ferdinand in Sarajevo
would not appear to obviously impact on India. However, a
system of alliances ensured that all European powers were
engaged in conflict by August 1914. Consequently, Britain called
upon its colonies to wage war against the Axis Powers. It is
interesting to note that the Austrian heir had been shot by Serb
nationalists as an expression of resentment towards - and to
throw off - imperial rule. Ironically, Britain asserted its own such
rule and declared war on India's behalf! Some one and a half
million Indians were thus brought into conflict - as both soldiers
and supporting non-combatants. Such mobilization cost India
#146 million. In the main, India's military efforts were
concentrated in the Middle East fighting the Ottoman Turks. This
proved problematic on two counts: first, the Indian Army's needs
were not a priority for Britain and, secondly, there was
discontent amongst Indian Muslims taking up arms against the
Ottoman Sultan since he also served as the Sunni Islamic leader
(i.e. Caliph). With Britain focussing on war against Germany,
Indian troops were left short of supplies and support; indeed,
only one motorized ambulance served the Indian Army during
1914's Mesopotamia Campaign. Further to this, no nursing aid
was available there until 1916 and this, no doubt, helped ensure
a severe cholera outbreak which served to both reduce
manpower and morale which, in turn, perhaps led to the Indian
Army's ultimate defeat at Kut. Besides Mesopotamia, Indians
also saw action in East Africa, Palestine and on the Western
Front; over 60,000 died in support of Britain's war.
Economic Effects of the War
Britain's dependence on India continued beyond the war.
Besides the cost of mobilizing its manpower (which was kept on
in the Middle East), India's government took on #100 million of
Britain's war debts. The tax burden imposed on Indians
increased notably while war-time inflation meant food costs rose
17/33
10/24/2016
40% and war needs ensured shortages of basic commodities

(such as kerosene) for Indians. Some of the raw materials and
goods sold by India during the conflict were no longer required;
such reduction in exports brought recession and unemployment
to the Raj. India was also hit by the post-war influenza epidemic.
The epidemic killed 13 million on the sub-continent.
Interestingly, the demands of war helped to quicken India's
industrial growth and helped develop new trade links with both
the USA and Japan. In these ways, Anglo-Indian
interdependency had been somewhat diluted.
A certain lawyer and campaigner, Mohandas Gandhi, returned
to India from South Africa in 1915. He was to become
Congress leader and a pivotal figure in Anglo-Indian relations.
He reflected on India's war effort thus: 'The liberty-loving English
will surely yield when they have seen that we have laid down our
lives for them.' It was the belief of Gandhi and others that the
British would hand over some measure of political control to
Indians, perhaps even home rule. Such an expectation was
furthered by Edwin Montagu, Secretary of State for India.
In 1917, Montagu recommended Indian involvement in
government administration as well as: 'The gradual development
of self-governing institutions, with a view to the progressive
realization of responsible government in India.' This Montagu
Declaration was compounded by the India Secretary and
Viceroy Chelmsford conducting a tour of India to elicit local
opinion and, in 1918, Montagu and Chelmsford produced a
report suggesting reform of Indian government.
Indian anticipation of freedom from British rule was derived from
the outcome of the war too. The war drove revolutionary events
in Russia in 1917 and marked the end of tsarist rule. It served as
an example for Indians seeking freedom from the Raj. The
Bolsheviks had seemingly illustrated how the downtrodden and
disenfranchised could remove and replace an imperial dynasty.
Further example and encouragement were lent by the collapse of
the Ottoman and Austro-Hungarian empires at the end of the
war. Germany also lost its overseas colonies as part of the postwar peace settlement. Arguably, a new international order
appeared to have been ushered in evidenced by the formation of
the League of Nations. The creation of new nation-states across
Eastern Europe and US President Wilson's Fourteen Points urging self-government to ensure world peace - further raised
Indian nationalist ambitions and expectations.
18/33
10/24/2016
Amongst those with such aspirations were returning soldiers.

While Indian combatants had enjoyed some measure of equality
and camaraderie with British troops, their efforts and sacrifice
stood for nothing as, again, they were treated like second class
citizens in their own country.
Interestingly, not all Indians were not able to return home
following the war's end in November 1918. Instead, soldiers
were kept on in Mesopotamia to resist rebels, some remained on
duty in the new British Mandate of Palestine while others were
used in conflict against Russian Bolsheviks and against Afghans
on India's northern borders. If extended service and further
casualties stirred anti-British sentiment, discontent within the
Indian Army had already been evident during the war itself. The
Sikh Revolt (Ghadr) movement infiltrated Punjabi garrisons who
turned on the British authorities over the winter of 1914-15.
There were two Baluchi troop mutinies over the same period and
the Indian Light Infantry also mutinied on Singapore, in 1915,
murdering several officers and Britons. Murmurings of Muslim
Indian discontent were evident over fighting their Ottoman coreligionists - and against their Calpih, Sultan Mehmet.
Besides pulling India into a faraway war, the Raj government
imposed the Defence of India Act in March 1915. It was
designed to help the British control India whilst its forces were
stretched across the Western Front and elsewhere. The Act
allowed for the suspension of trial by jury in cases of political
dissent and for the imprisonment of agitators. If anything, such
measures made Indians more receptive to nationalism; by 1918
new Home Rule Leagues boasted over 60,000 active members.
The ordinarily acquiescent Congress installed the radical Bal
Tilak as its leader in 1917 and successfully petitioned for the
right to tax British manufactured cotton imports (in order to
better protect local textile producers). Moreover, in the
Lucknow Pact, Congress forged agreement with AIML to
pressure the British for constitutional change i.e. to open up
government to Indian involvement.
Further pressure on the Raj came in the form of Islamist
advances in Bengal and the Punjab but also in the southern
Malabar region where Muslim separatists sought an independent
enclave. The resulting conflict of October 1921 brought 2,400
deaths. Muslim resentment had also re-surfaced with the Khilafat
Movement (1919-24) which sought to protect the Caliph and
the Ottoman Empire in the face of the imposition of a
considerable war indemnity and the confiscation of its colonies.
19/33
10/24/2016
The Punjab had seen particularly serious war-time rioting and

violence: it was not only an effect of inflation and food shortages,
nor the sedition sown by Afghan incursions, but also because of
its demographic mix of Muslim, Sikh and Hindu communities
who tended towards mutual mistrust. Indeed, it was an
uncommonly politicized region - serving as a base for both the
Ghadr and Khilafat movements, but also as a target for post-war
Communist propaganda from Bolshevik Russia. In 1920 the
Communist Party of India was formed and soon established a
section in the Punjab led by Ghulam Hussain.
World War I effectively raised Indian expectations for some form
of political collaboration, if not self-government. The war also
undermined goodwill towards the Raj: it gave rise to ideologies,
organizations and individuals opposed to British rule. While there
was a measure of post-war constitutional reform in India, the Raj
was far from being dismantled. Instead, as the New York Times
recognized: 'British imperialism would be compelled to evacuate
Great Britain itself before it would willingly evacuate India' (Clair
Price, 10th July 1921).
The Inter-War Years
Government of India Act 1919
For all India's war efforts and for all the findings of the
Chelmsford-Montagu tour, the India Act of 1919 disappointed
those anticipating, or intent on, self-government. In short, the act
made the following changes:
It enlarged Provincial Councils which gained control of
'transferred' policy areas including agriculture, health and
education
It enlarged the imperial legislature which was divided into a
Legislative Assembly and a Council of States
It ensured the Assembly and Council were made up of both
elected and nominated members (including princely states and
minorities such as Christians, Muslims and Anglo-Indians)
It provided for a High Commissioner in London representing
India
It provided for further constitutional reform i.e. the Act covered
the period 1919-29
The India Act established a dual form of Anglo-Indian
government known as 'dyarchy'. The Viceroy, however, could
veto any proposed legislation and the nominated members of the
legislature were a means to offset any Indian parties' growing
20/33
10/24/2016
influence. Further to this, the British kept firm control of

'reserved' policy areas such as defence, foreign affairs and
communications. Congress was disappointed by the India Act.
Rather than move the country towards self-government, the
British had used constitutional reforms as a stalling process and
maintained their rule. Arguably, the act could well demonstrate
British rule as an iron fist within a velvet glove. Indeed, earlier in
1919, the iron fist had been brutally demonstrated.
The Amritsar Massacre
With troops scattered across World War I's conflict zones particularly in ex-Ottoman territories - the British were
vulnerable to disorder in India. To protect the Raj, anti-terrorist
laws were introduced. Despite unilateral Indian opposition, the
Rowlatt Act passed through the (as yet unreformed) imperial
legislature in March 1919. The act enabled the government to
arrest and imprison troublemakers without trial. It marked
something of a turning point in the history of the Raj - not least
by lending impetus to Gandhi's campaigning.
Given the overseas absence of Tilak, Gandhi inherited the
leadership of Congress and instigated protest against the new
legislation. On 6th April, Gandhi called for a hartal - a day of
prayer, fasting and no work - in effect a general strike. It proved
to be the first nationwide protest since 1857's Mutiny. The
hartals in the Punjab, however, were accompanied by violence.
When two leading protest figures were arrested in the Sikh holy
city of Amritsar, mass rioting followed and five Britons were
killed.
General Reginald Dyer was sent to Amritsar on 11th April, by
Punjab Governor Michael O'Dwyer, as the city had fallen into
anarchy. General Dyer believed Amritsar had to be recovered,
not least for the message it would send other riot afflicted
Punjabi cities (such as Lahore) and, indeed, all India. A curfew
was imposed on Amritsar i.e. all processions and political
meetings were outlawed. The 13th April marked the Sikh festival
of Baisakhi and 15,000 gathered for a rally in the enclosed
gardens (Jallianwala Bagh) adjacent to the Golden Temple.
Despite breaking the conditions of curfew, the gathering was
peaceful. Dyer, however, decided to send in troops. Over 1,600
rounds were fired on the crowd killing 379, including women and
children, and injuring 1,200. He followed the shooting with the
flogging of high caste Indians suspected of agitation. Dyer
21/33
10/24/2016
believed his decision at Amritsar restored authority in the Punjab

and even saved the Raj.
The Non-Cooperation Movement 1920-22
Dyer's actions showed a degree of desperation to British rule
and, more so, evidence of barbarism. While Dyer was eventually
forced to resign, he was not prosecuted and his sympathisers in
Britain raised a generous cash gift for him. Arguably, the
Amritsar Massacre indicated Britain's loss of moral authority.
Gandhi was quick to move against such unjust government and,
in 1920, launched a non-cooperation campaign. At the core of
his campaign was non-violence or satyagraha which involved
boycotting British goods and institutions (such as schools and
courts).
Such pacific methods ensured Indians maintained moral authority
over the British. Gandhi deliberately sought to unite the nation by
adopting minority or marginal groups' causes: he did so by calling
a Khilafat Day hartal, by promoting women's and Untouchables'
rights and (earlier) by lending support to impoverished indigo
farmers. As a consequence of both the non-cooperation
campaign and Gandhi's inclusivity, Congress membership grew
20-fold (to 2 million members) over 1920-21. Indeed, Congress
opened a hundred additional district branches and had now
become a mass movement against British rule.
The non-cooperation protest reached new levels when the
Prince of Wales embarked on a royal tour of India. Gandhi
called for a hartal to greet the Prince's Bombay arrival on 17th
November 1921; it developed into something more than a strike
however. Violence erupted across the city with extensive looting
and the killing of three Indian constables.
A hartal was similarly organized to meet the royal tour at Madras
on 13th January 1922; again, it turned riotous despite Gandhi's
consistent calls for protest to remain non-violent. Only a month
later Gandhi felt forced to call off the non-cooperation
movement. He did so in response to events at Chauri Chaura.
An anti-British demonstration in the town led to a clash with local
police who opened fire on the crowd. On running out of
ammunition, they took shelter in the police station which a mob
promptly set on fire. Twenty-two Indian policemen were killed.
Gandhi not only called off national campaigning but also declared
Indians unready for self-rule. He continued to promote the
boycott of British goods and a focus on self-sufficiency known
22/33
10/24/2016
as swadesh. Ironically, it was at this point that Gandhi was

imprisoned for two years by the government. Other Congress
figures believed the disorder and violence that Gandhi despised
could well have made India ungovernable and brought an end to
the Raj. One such nationalist, Jawaharlal Nehru, believed that
solely non-violent methods were insufficient and resented
Gandhi's overly spiritual focus. Evidently, Gandhi had put moral
concerns before simply seeing off the British.
1920s' Indian Disunity
Gandhi's political influence diminished not only as a result of his
imprisonment but also by his later withdrawal to a Gujarat
ashram. His disappearance combined with the failure of the noncooperation campaign meant Congress membership slumped to
18,000 members by 1925. Even the boycott of all things British
ceased. Civil servants maintained cooperation with the Raj and
the recognized need for literacy and qualifications ensured
government schools remained popular. More serious, however,
was the loss of Gandhi as a force to unite Indians. Between
1923-27, the United Provinces (now Uttar Pradesh)
experienced 88 inter-religious riots. Similar communal disorder in
the North-West Frontier Province led to the entire Hindu
population of Kohat fleeing their hometown in 1924. Those
seeking an independent and exclusively Hindu India formed
militant nationalist organizations such as Rashtriya Swayamsevek
Sangh (in 1925) and the Hindustan Socialist Republican
Association (in 1928).
The most widespread opposition to British rule in the late 1920s,
however, came in response to the underwhelming provision
made for the review of India's constitution as set out by 1919's
India Act. In short, the Conservative government appointed
seven parliamentary members, led by Sir John Simon, to
determine the sub-continent's political future.
The Simon Commission
The absence of any Indian from the Simon Commission
provoked outrage. A nationwide hartal and the hanging of black
flags marked the Commission's arrival in February 1928.
Protests took place in every city the Commission visited. The
most notable proved to be that in Lahore on 30th October.
When key Congress figure Lala Lajpat Rai led a popular, silent,
non-violent march, the police responded by beating protestors
with sticks. Rai died from the injuries he sustained.
23/33
10/24/2016
The findings of the Commission were published in May 1930.

The report proposed representative government in the provinces
- yet retaining central British control - and recommended a series
of conferences to promote constitutional change. Inclusive
discussion, with Indian representation, was further necessitated
by serious opposition to the Raj in the form of 1930's Chittagong
Uprising in Bengal and Gandhi's new call to action through his
Salt March.
The Salt March
A 240 mile march to Dandi on the coast of the Arabian Sea
announced Gandhi's return to political campaigning in April
1930. His purpose was to 'break the salt laws of this satanic
government'. Salt was crucial to Indians as a means to both
preserve and flavour food. The British taxed salt sales which
provided some 3% of their revenue from India. As a means of
protest and, crucially, to promote swadesh, Gandhi's march
culminated in taking salt from the seashore. Thousands followed
Gandhi's example. The most significant action was at the salt
pans north of Bombay. Over 2,000 peaceful protestors marched
towards the salt deposits only to be met by police aggression.
While two protestors were killed and hundreds injured at the
hands of the police, not one retaliated. The scene is sharply
depicted in the 1982 film 'Gandhi'.
As many as 25,000 Indians, including Gandhi and Nehru, were
imprisoned for their role in the salt campaign. The episode
seemed only to confirm Britain's heavy handedness and loss of
any moral right to govern India.
The Roundtable Conferences 1930-32
The Roundtable Conferences were a series of three, London
based, meetings designed to facilitate constitutional reform in
India. They were a follow-up to both 1919's India Act and the
Simon Commission.
The first conference was opened by King George V, on 12th
November 1930, and was chaired by Prime Minister Ramsay
MacDonald. Despite such pomp, it was fatally flawed by the
absence of any Congress members - a number of whom were in
jail. An Indian political federation was both proposed and
supported, while the spokesman for the Untouchables, B.R.
Ambedkar, demanded a separate electorate to guarantee their
representation at provincial level. The proposed federation of
India would be made up of the 11 British provinces and the
24/33
10/24/2016
princely states. Importantly, Indians would be involved at all

levels of government.
Viceroy Irwin released Gandhi from jail in January 1931 and
promised Congress involvement at the second meeting in return
for an end to civil disobedience. It was Gandhi, then, who
attended the Second Roundtable Conference which opened on
7th September 1931. While Gandhi was Congress' sole
representative, he asserted that it alone represented all India. He
rejected the idea of separate electorates or political safeguards
for Muslims and other minorities. He also resisted the idea that
Untouchables constituted a 'minority', insisting they were part of
the Hindu community. Consequently, and unsurprisingly, Indian
agreement was not forthcoming.
The Third Roundtable Conference of late 1932 was poorly
attended, short-lived and unproductive. As a collective,
however, the conferences provided some background and
details which were reflected in 1935's Government of India Act.
The Roundtable Conferences 1930-32
India's nationalists were dissatisfied with this further India Act
since they gained neither independence nor dominion status.
Nevertheless, the India Act was a step towards self-rule however distant. Specifically, it brought the vote to 35 million
Indians (based on wealth criteria) and it introduced an elected
Indian Assembly, albeit without influence over defence or foreign
policy. The Act enabled 11 provincial assemblies to have full
control over local affairs. Two new provinces (Sind and the
North-West Frontier) had been created by the Act, while Burma
was permitted to separate from India. Indeed, the right to secede
from India was established.
The Act also provided for both legislative and provincial
elections which came to be held over the winter of 1936-37.
Beforehand, the British attempted to weaken Congress by
nurturing the Muslim League. They did this not only by having
created the two Muslim-majority provinces of Sind and NorthWest Frontier but, further, by acceding to their Roundtable
demand for separate communal electorates.
The Congress and League manifestos were strikingly similar.
They differed, however, over electorates and over India's official
language: Congress urged a unified constituency and Hindi
language, while AIML stood for separate constituencies and
Urdu. In terms of election results, Nehru led Congress to a
25/33
10/24/2016
double victory. Congress emerged as the single largest

representative in the Legislative Assembly and Council of States,
and secured 40% of the total available seats across the 11
provinces. Arguably, this was far from an overwhelming victory
and undermined Gandhi's notion that Congress represented all
India. However, Congress won five of the provincial elections
outright and was able to form a coalition ministry in a further four
provinces.
If Mohammed Ali Jinnah, leader of the Muslim League, never
anticipated election victory, he had expected sufficient support to
ensure AIML's role in provincial government coalitions and
ministries. Instead, the elections provided heavy defeat: AIML
secured only 106 of 491 reserved Muslim seats. Even in the
Muslim dominated Punjab, it was Fazlul Hassan's Unionist Party
that secured victory and formed provincial government.
While Jinnah had proposed forming coalition with Congress in
provinces without an overall majority, Congress rejected the
League's offer. This proved a turning point in Indian politics and,
indeed, the very future of the sub-continent. The rejection of
AIML (combined with Congress favouritism towards Hindus in
provincial ministries) meant the League came to pursue a
separatist agenda. The scale of Congress' victory confirmed that
Muslims would only ever constitute a minority group in a united
India.
Pakistan Resolution
Ironically, electoral defeat served to strengthen AIML: different
Muslim communities and organizations now feared Hindu
dominance. Not only did Muslims turn away from Congress but
Islamic scholars and moderate Punjabi Unionists alike gathered
behind AIML and the leadership of Jinnah.
Arguably, the most significant result of India's provincial elections
came at Lahore in 1940 when the Muslim League Conference
passed the Pakistan Resolution. AIML, then, was now
committed to breaking away from India to form an independent
Muslim majority homeland i.e. Pakistan. The name 'Pakistan'
was derived the northern provinces which AIML proposed
should form the new state - the Punjab, Afghan Frontier (i.e.
North-West Frontier), Kashmir, Sind and Baluchistan. The
League now had a radically different manifesto to Congress.
While Gandhi, in particular, opposed such separatism, outright
hostility came from Master Tara Singh, a Punjabi Sikh leader,
26/33
10/24/2016
who portentously declared: 'If the Muslim League wants to

establish Pakistan, they will have to pass through an ocean of
Sikh blood.'
World War II
As an interesting footnote to India's elections, Congress now
controlled provincial taxes. In this way, India's economic value to
Britain diminished. However, with September 1939's outbreak
of World War II, the Raj was to show its worth once again.
As in 1914, the Viceroy (Lord Linlithgow) declared war on
India's behalf. In response, Congress issued a demand for
complete independence. The best Linlithgow could propose was
dominion status at some unspecified point and Indian
representation on the Viceroy's Executive Council. Congress
leaders refused to cooperate with the government; instead, they
rejected any involvement in the war effort. Indeed, Gandhi's
recommendation to Britain, facing the Nazi threat, was to: 'Allow
yourself, man, woman and child, to be slaughtered, but you will
refuse to owe allegiance to them' (Cited in The Times, 4th July,
1940).
On 10th November 1939, Congress representatives and
ministers duly resigned across the provinces as a mark of noncooperation. Jinnah swiftly declared a Deliverance Day in
response to the resignations, i.e. India's Muslims were now freed
from supposed Congress injustice. Jinnah and the League
supported the government in the meantime. Arguably, such
cooperation showed how Britain benefited from its bolstering of
minority groups in India. On the other hand, Jinnah's approach
ensured AIML came to be regarded as the natural successor to
Britain to govern the Muslim majority, northern, provinces. It is
no coincidence that the Pakistan Resolution quickly followed
since it served as a form of pressure on, and potential solution
for, the Raj. Indeed, a separate Pakistan was not far off Britain's
earlier proposal for an Indian federation at the Roundtable
Conferences.
The turn of 1942 brought Britain defeat at the hands of the
Japanese, most notably on the key strategic island of Singapore.
Prime Minister Churchill sought broad Indian backing for the war
and dispatched Sir Stafford Cripps, MP, to India to gain the
main parties' support. In return, Britain would give India postwar dominion status and, crucially, the right of provinces to
27/33
10/24/2016
secede from India.

Congress rejected Cripps' offer - not only because of its overt
concessions to the princely states, but largely because it
sanctioned the break-up of India.
Quit India Campaign
Having failed to secure suitable concessions from Britain and
having withdrawn from provincial government, Congress was
losing influence. In order to assert itself, Congress launched the
Quit India campaign in August 1942. Despite a flurry of hartals
and riots, both the Indian police and army stood firm against the
rebellion. If anything, the campaign back-fired as hundreds of
Congress leaders - including Gandhi and Nehru - were
imprisoned and the party became utterly marginalized for the
remainder of the war.
Another nationalist figure, however, S.C. Bose (or 'Netaji') was
prepared to take a more direct approach to remove British rule.
In 1943, Bose arrived in Tokyo in order to organize an Indian
militia to fight alongside the Japanese. The Indian National Army
(INA) was raised from Indian prisoners of war and was sent into
combat against British forces in Burma. By and large, INA
recruits lacked loyalty to the cause. They deserted in their
hundreds and were defeated at the Battle of Imphal (June 1944)
which effectively halted Japan's advances in Asia and proved
significant in the war's eventual outcome.
India's War Contribution
Ultimately, two million Indians served in British armed forces
across Asia, Africa and Europe. Besides halting Japan, Indians
were particularly prominent in the liberation of Italy; indeed,
6,000 died in doing so. Overall, 87,000 Indians were killed over
the course of the Second World War. Besides such sacrifice,
India contributed considerable funds and resources towards the
war effort. The control of grain prices and supplies (to feed
troops) led to a further, and unacceptable, cost. As domestic
rice supplies faltered and prices rose, as many as two million
Bengalis perished in the subsequent famine.
British rule undoubtedly came at a high price for India. Again, the
war raised Indian expectations but then so did recent promises
of self-rule and secession. Similarly, Britain's victory in both the
European and Asian theatres of war, in 1945, came at a
devastating cost: it was bankrupt and utterly dependent on
28/33
10/24/2016
American loans. Further to this, Britain owed #1250 million to its

largest creditor - India!
The Post-War Period
Britain's moral, economic and military grip on India had been
loosened by the effects of the Second World War. Further to
this, a psychological shift was evident in Britain. Winston
Churchill, the celebrated war leader, and his Conservative Party
were rejected in 1945's elections; instead, Clement Attlee
headed a Labour government which the public had handed a
clear parliamentary majority.
If anything, the war years had concentrated Britain's attention
and spending overseas. The margin of Labour victory indicated
how the public wanted to focus on domestic concerns. In this
way, Attlee's government established the National Health Service
and set about erecting council housing - not least as a means to
re-build towns affected by war-time bombing. There was little
appetite for further military spending or sacrifice on foreign
shores: indeed, reducing the risk of both appeared the key to
Britain's approach to India.
If victory against Japan and the wider Axis Powers was
welcomed in India, it wasn't long before dissent at British rule reemerged. Early 1946 brought a general strike across Bombay
and mutiny amongst both the Indian police and navy. Oddly,
Congress refused to encourage such disorder. Congress was
fearful of anarchy jeopardizing its inheritance of government in
India. To such an end, the Labour government decided to gauge
the political situation in India by calling for elections across the
provinces and legislature.
The election results confirmed Congress' strength yet AIML
gained support and could now claim to represent the majority of
Muslim opinion.
Attlee then sent a Cabinet Mission, in April 1946, to fathom
India's future. Congress and the League failed to agree on the
make-up of a proposed central government and on the very
nature of an independent India: AIML sought separation
whereas Congress sought a united country. Indeed, the newly
appointed Congress President, Jawaharlal Nehru, reported to
the Cabinet Mission that a Congress-led India would never
permit a breakaway Pakistan. Jinnah was incensed and declared
a Direct Action Day for 16th August 1946. In effect, he
presented Congress with a choice: chaos or partition. The
29/33
10/24/2016
subsequent rioting and violence brought 5,000 deaths in Calcutta

alone. In response, the Hindus of Bihar set upon the local
minority Muslim community.
Post-war demobilization meant the British had insufficient
manpower to contain such communal violence. By the end of
1946, the British had little over 10,000 troops across the entire
Raj. This suggested both an unwillingness and inability to control
India. Indeed, AIML had now boycotted its elected roles and, in
February 1947, Louis Mountbatten replaced Lord Wavell as
Viceroy. Mountbatten had a mandate to hand power over to the
Indians by June 1948.
Mountbatten quickly recognized that securing all party agreement
(let alone compromise) on the future of India was impossible.
The Viceroy recognized that without acceding to AIML's
demands for Pakistan, India would fall into a prolonged civil war.
Indeed, in the spring of 1947, communal violence had already
erupted in the Punjab and North-West Frontier Province. While
the Muslim League directed a civil disobedience campaign
against Congress at a provincial level, militant Sikhs demanded
direct action against the League.
Mountbatten had no wish to preside over the violence and
anarchy that had come to characterize much of post-war India.
Further to this, both he and Nehru recognized that new claims
for secession were emerging. Not only had Punjabi Sikhs made
claims for a separate Khalistan but demands for an independent
Nagastan, Pathanastan and Bengal were soon raised by other
ethnic communities.
If Britain had neither the will nor manpower to avert civil war,
then Congress had no desire to inherit an ever disintegrating
India. Time, then, was of the essence. Nehru was prepared to
accept the formation of Pakistan in the north-western and northeastern corners of the country while, on 3rd June, Mountbatten
brought forward British withdrawal to 15th August 1947.
Partition and Independence
By bringing forward the date of independence and partition by
some ten months, the British now had the task of mapping out
the new states of India and Pakistan. A Boundary Commission
was established under the chairmanship of Cyril Radcliffe, a
senior British civil servant. Its task was to separate Pakistan from
India and to define the two states' borders. The Commission had
five weeks to do so. The public perception was that areas with a
30/33
10/24/2016
distinct Muslim or Hindu-Sikh majority would fall into either an

independent Pakistan or India; consequently, homes were
abandoned as communities sought to escape the arson and
violence that was used to encourage specific communal
dominance in areas of the Punjab. Ironically, Britain's military
withdrawal from India continued and neither Congress nor
AIML would sanction the use of British troops to control civil
unrest.
With such distractions over partition, Viceroy Mountbatten
belatedly convened a conference with the rulers of India's
princely states in July 1947. They were informed that they would
have to opt into either India or Pakistan - whichever they were
closer to geographically. The princes regarded this as imposed,
rushed and unfair. Indeed, prior negotiations had suggested the
right to secession and self-rule. Nevertheless, the princely states
mostly joined India (including Kashmir, ruled by a Hindu
maharajah, yet a largely Muslim province).
Ultimately, the Boundary Commission established a Pakistan
made up of the provinces of Baluchistan, North West Frontier,
Sind, West Punjab and East Bengal. The latter was some 1,000
miles from the rest of Pakistan and effectively became East
Pakistan.
Pakistan was rather impractically divided but it also appeared to
have come off second best in terms of land distribution and
frontier lines. In truth, Mountbatten (and Nehru) believed
Pakistan was unsustainable and likely to have to be reabsorbed
into India before long.
Independence was declared in Pakistan on 14th August 1947.
As Jinnah became Pakistan's Governor-General, so Nehru led
India to independence on the following day. While Karachi and
Delhi celebrated, the Punjab and other areas fell into further
appalling violence. Partition had left 5 million Hindus in Pakistan
and a greater number of Muslims in India. Estimates suggest that
10 million fled their homes to find sanctuary on the other side of
the new border. One million of these refugees lost their lives as a
result of the accompanying communal violence.
If the birth of independent India and Pakistan was met by a
bloody baptism, it reflected both the desperation and division
that British rule had contrived. Not only had viable ruling factions
emerged in the early twentieth century but widespread, organized
opposition to foreign domination had been evident since 1920's
31/33
10/24/2016
non-cooperation campaign. Arguably, if such momentum had

been maintained, and Gandhi had relented in terms of nonviolence, the British may have been forced to leave sooner.
The conditions that ensured Britain's withdrawal after 1945 were
similarly evident following World War I. Not only was Britain
economically and militarily exhausted, the public had become
weary of conflict. Interestingly, the fear of Suffragette
campaigning was enough to extend the vote to British women in
1918. Arguably, it was no greater step to enfranchise Indians
too; indeed, had they not made equal war-time sacrifice to
Britain's women?
The international climate further suggested Indian home rule was
credible: not only had European empires dramatically collapsed,
the Treaty of Versailles and its peace treaties strongly promoted
the idea of national self-government. Britain was stretched by
new League of Nations' mandate roles in the Middle East yet
also needed to recover trade competitiveness and contend with
domestic industrial disputes.
Ultimately, Raj rule was brutally re-asserted at Amritsar. The
massacre only served to delay the inevitable as it politicized the
Indian public and turned nationalist opposition into a mass
movement. The British effectively deployed two tactics to
maintain rule for a further generation i.e. a series of
concessionary bluffs and by dividing Indian nationalism. The
India Act of 1919 and its re-visitation by the Simon Commission
were followed by the Roundtable Conferences which gave way
to 1935's India Act. The government then hesitated before
calling provincial elections. The slow drip of constitutional reform
lent optimism to India's politicians yet brought them no closer to
outright independence. In the meantime, Britain had successfully
undermined the nationalist challenge to its rule by dividing the
Indians amongst themselves by promoting political safeguards for
minorities such as the Untouchables and Muslims.
World War II left Britain economically, morally and militarily
bankrupt. It was in no position to hang on to a sub-continent
which, again, had been dragged into conflict. Further to this,
India had been explicitly promised self-rule to ensure its
commitment to the war effort. Viceroy Mountbatten was quick
to recognize the danger inherent in denying independence any
longer. In this way, Britain's withdrawal in August 1947 can be
seen as a rather cowardly cost-saving exercise: no adequate
policing or resource provision was made to soften either the
32/33
10/24/2016
tragic violence or refugee crisis that brought Pakistan and India

to freedom.
Twentieth Century material provided by Dr Robert Carr. He
is the author of a study guide on the History of 20th Century
India that includes activities and tasks. It is available from:
Waterstones
Search this Site
Armed Forces | Art and Culture | Articles | Biographies | Colonies | Discussion | Glossary | Home | Library |
Links | Map Room | Sources and Media | Science and Technology | Search | Student Zone | Timelines | TV &
Film | Wargames |
33/33

British Empire - Asia - India

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

British Empire - Asia - India

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

10/24/2016

British Empire: Asia: India

Search this Site

Initial Contacts with the British

More maps of India

British Empire: Asia: India

Ships would always prove to be a more economically viable way

Images of Imperial India

Raj Letterhead Crests

Delhi (1938) - Jack ...

Captain Best's victory opened the door for King James'

British Empire: Asia: India

Jahangir in 1616. Sir Thomas Roe was painfully aware of the

CWGC Video explaining the contribution

Vasco da Gama is first European to

Mughal Dominance begins after

Sir Hugh Willoughby leads attempt

The Muscovy Company created.

English East India Company

Red Dragon enters Surat and

Sir Thomas Roe attends Emperor

EIC granted permission to build

EIC establishes Fort St George in

Bombay passes to Charles II as a

1696 Calcutta founded as Fort William

EIC replaces Mir Jafar with Mir

British Empire: Asia: India

all Portugese ports in Asia. This effectively concluded any

EIC agrees to pay HM Government

Bank of England bales out EIC with

Ideally, the EIC would have liked their commercial relationship

India Act sets up Board of Control

British Empire: Asia: India

was a young EIC writer named Robert Clive.

A Political Legacy Of The British Empire:

British Empire: Asia: India

removed French influence from the region of Bengal. Clive then

Links about India

British ascendency was confirmed in 1764 when the remnants of

Lagaan: Once upon a time in India

Heat and Dust

Although power without responsibility was useful for the EIC, it

The Tiger and the Flame

British Empire: Asia: India

their judicial system. From the British government's point of view,

British Empire: Asia: India

considered to be corrupt or disreputable. He professionalised

British Empire: Asia: India

The administration of Governor General Lord Dalhousie was

British Empire: Asia: India

also happily provided the match. The introduction of a new

British Empire: Asia: India

British Empire: Asia: India

man, believing that to entangle ourselves in Afghanistan would be

British Empire: Asia: India

interference in their affairs and the prelude to annexation. There

British Empire: Asia: India

this made a new distinction on grounds of race and emphasized

British Empire: Asia: India

British Empire: Asia: India

the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. While Indians were taxed

British Empire: Asia: India

it would be fair to say that any Indian organization or leadership