Modern India Midterm

-1Collin

Lindo 10/12/09 HI 474

Mid-Term Exam Throughout the nineteenth century the British sought to tighten their grip over India while encountering various forms of dissension and revolt from the native people. This could hardly be considered surprising as the British had relied on Indian resistance in order to gain power years prior. As the British established an extremely powerful structure of rule over India, it became essential that they retain and increase support throughout the various areas of the subcontinent in order to establish a firm foundation of government and ensure a profitable future. In a land with an emphasis placed on local rather than state rule, and cultural and religious identity trumping any notions of nationality, the British were forced to revaluate their own system of rule in order to devise a more successful government. Loyalties were fragile, and the British would often find themselves forced to choose between accommodation and suppression. Rule had been established, but it was up to the British to stabilize, expand and legitimize its governing power. Surely this would not be such an easy undertaking given the Indian population vastly outnumbered that of its rulers by many millions of inhabitants. The East India company had relied heavily on the Indian people in conquering their homeland. Sepoys greatly outnumbered British troops. They had been lured into conquest with varying backgrounds and agendas, but all would be paid well for their efforts. In this way it can be argued that initial conquest was not made by the British over India, but rather the Indians over India (Seely,49). An instability had existed in India for many years between various ruling classes and the people, further complicated by the various religions and cultures which existed, usually separated into various towns and

smaller villages. Neither a strong central government, nor a nationalistic identity existed. The British sought to provide this government in exchange for the spoils of the land, meanwhile hoping to keep a nationalistic identity at bay for the time being. By the nineteenth century most of the subcontinent had been conquered by Wellesley and it became priority to keep it that way. The subsidiary alliance system sought to keep princes in power so long as they paid for British military protection from their enemies. This practice looked good on paper, “however, this seemingly equitable arrangement led only to British conquest and to Indian bankruptcy” ( Metcalf, 71). While the British promised to help keep these princes in power, they effectively lessened their power by plunging them into debt while simultaneously using them as figureheads to legitimize British rule in possibly hostile areas. This debt constantly grew and the British manipulated leaders to pit them against one another thereby consolidating their power over them (Metcalf 72). The British Raj continually expanded as smaller forces dwindled. Many rulers lacked the power and capital to confront the British Raj, their fears of despotism growing. As the ruling class lost much of its power to counteract the growing dominance of the British government, the peasantry bore the brunt of heavy taxation incurred upon them by the foreign power. The British sought to tax them in order to increase revenue back home. A system of land taxation was established with the ushering in of the ryotwari settlement which would seemingly give more power to the peasant who worked the land and out of the hands of greedy landowners who were unable to fulfill the ever increasing demand put upon them. In reality this system did just the opposite leaving these peasants in substantial debt, while landowners still profited no longer restricted by

the former system (Metcalf 78). Of great concern by the early nineteenth century were various tribes which roamed the land thereby avoiding taxation. These groups such as the Pindaris were attacked by the Government for their non compliance, furthering still more discontentment among the peasant classes (Metcalf, 79). Revolt was more imminent among these groups who saw themselves as answering to no one, something had to be done. Eventually, the Khandesh Bill was offered to promote land ownership by giving loans to these tribes (79). Those who did not comply were branded as bandits and rebels in an attempt to criminalize them. Eventually the British government went too far as evidenced by the events in Benares. As if the land tax was not enough of a burden, the British sought to institute a house tax. Previously the practice had been only to institute taxes which had been instituted under prior systems of government thereby increasing compliance through familiarity thereby legitimizing British claims of authority. The house tax however, was entirely unfamiliar to residents of Benares (Dharampal, 115). As a result most residents stopped working and staged a massive protest, refusing to leave the country side and return to work until their case was heard for the repealment of the house tax. Although the protest was nonviolent in nature it alarmed many British officials as it shut down revenue for months and led to a large anti-tax movement which encompassed various cultures, classes and religions the British had thought unable to unite. Eventually the house tax was repealed in favor of a more agreeable tax on betel and tobacco (117). Other revolts were not so peaceful. Sayyid Ahmad’s Islamic uprising showed the fearless mindset and capable mobilization of a significant group of disillusioned

Muslims. A former company man, Ahmad contested British cultural policies, revenue assessments, and prejudicial behavior towards Indians (Metcalf 99). The Faraizi movement spent several decades disturbing the agricultural system in Bengal (84). Many more revolts occurred such as that of the Bhils and Santals, both forest peoples intent on battling British monopolization and coercion. A common distaste and distrust of the British government was a catalyst for unification and a call to battle (85). Of greatest significance was the massive revolt which began in 1857 with an act of mutiny within the Bengali army. Many Sepoys in various areas joined the rebel cause as fighting spread throughout various Indian provinces (Metcalf 100). The violence which ensued led to massive indiscriminate killings on both sides. Loyalties went back and forth and it was difficult to determine isolated revolts from the broader rebellion. Many groups revolted for a number of different reasons, but the British found themselves rapidly entrenched in warfare on all sides. Ultimately, they relied on their former practice of playing sides and garnering enough allies to squash the rebels, but not without a price. Many resented and feared Indians leading to widespread racism and discrimination in the years which followed. British rule had been legitimately threatened, and something had to be done. Eventually the rule of India was transferred from the East India Company to the British Crown in 1858. In order to reconcile with the Indians after the revolts, Queen Victoria issued a proclamation which ensured indirect rule to princes in princely states, to promote industrialization and social advancement, as well as freedom of religion and the practice of traditional customs (Metcalf, 104). Sadly, the proclamation did little more than reconcile the Indians for a brief period while the British continued to exploit the

natives. Industrialization was rapid, paid for through immense taxation. Meanwhile, colonial rule provided an economy which forced Indians to export raw materials while importing goods from Britain. The nation was plunged even further into debt as Britain prospered. Resistance was likely to follow. The vast majority would have nothing to lose and so much to gain. British “accommodations” would no longer suffice.