During the heyday of Mughal rule a number a number of
Europeans came to India for trading.
These Europeans were well organized as joint-stock companies, and set up their
trading centres called factories, indifferent regions of India. The
Anglo-French trade rivalry and their subsequent attempt ot interfere in the
political affairs of India culminated into the Carnatic Wars. By the end of the
Third Carnatic Wars, the French were no longer a threat to the British.
In the
meanwhile, the political situation was undergoing drastic changes in another
important region of India, viz. Bengal , which was one of the most fertile and
prosperous parts of India. Siraj-ud-Daula, the Bengal Nawab, decided to take
actions against the British and the ‘Battle of Plassey’ (1757) took place with
latter as the victor. The subsequent activities of the British led to a final
showdown in the form of their victory in Battle of Buxar(1764), making them the
real masters of Bengal, though formal authority still remained with the Nawab.
From this base the British began to compete first as equals and later as
superiors to the Indian powers.
With
the victory of the British in the Carnatic wars and more importantly in the
Bengal battles began the process of their conquest of India. By 1765 the British
had not become the virtual rulers of Bengal, Bihar and Orissa, but also begun
to dictate trems to the Nawabs of both carnatic and Awadh. The British, However
had to conted with the Marathas for another half a century and also had to
overcome the resistance of Hyderabad and Mysore States. This was a gradual
process by the end of which, all parts of India came under British control.
BATTLE FO PLASSEY
The British Company had obtained valuable privileges in 1717
under a royal ‘forman’ of the Mughal emperor, which had granted the company the
freedom to export and import their goods in Bengal without paying taxes, and
the right to issue ‘dastaks’ for the movement of such goods. The company’s
servants were also permitted ot trade but were are not covered by this farman.
All the Nawabs fo Bengal from MUrshid Quli Khan to Alivardi Khan, had objected
to the English misinterpretation of the farman of 1717. But matters came to a
head in 1756 when Siraj-ud-daula succeeded to the throne.
The
spark was provided by the fortification of Calcutta by the British without the
prior permission of the Nawab and their refusal to demolish the fortification
when ordered by the Nawab. Siraj was willing to let he Europeans remain as
merchants and not as masters. He ordered both the English and the French to
demolish their fortifications at Calcutta and Chandranagore and to desist from
fighting each other . While the French obeyed
his order, the English refused to do so. The English Company was now determined
to remain in Bengal even against the wishes of the Nawab and to trade on its
own terms . Siraj seized the English factory at Kasimbazaar, marched on to
Calcutta and occupied Fort Williams in 1756. After receiving aid from Madras, the
British, under Lord Clive reconquered Calcutta. Both Sides met for battle in
the field of Plassey on 23rd June ,1757. But it was a battle only in
name, for the major part of the Nawab’s army (led by the trailors Mir Jafar and
Rai Durlabh) took no part in the fighting. Mir Jafar, the new Nawab, remained a
puppet in British hands. The East India Company was granted undisputed right to
trade free of tax in Bengal, Bihar and Orissa, received te zamindari of 24
paraganas near Calcutta and a sum of Rs. 17.7 millions as compensation for the
attack on Calcutta. The Company opened its first mint in Calcutta in 1757.
Yet the
Battle of Plassey was not the final round of the struggle for the complete
mastery over Bengal. There was to be one more battle, the Battle of Buxar
fought in 1764.
BATTLE OF BUXAR
Mir Jafar soon realized that it was impossible to meet the
full demands of the company and its officials who began to criticize the Nawab
for his inability to fulfill their expectations. Consequently, in 1760, they
forced him to abdicate in favour of his son-in law, Mir Qasim, who rewarded British
by granting them the zamindari of the districts of Burdwan, Midnapore and
Chittagong. Mir Qasim, however, belied the English hopes and soon emerged as a
threat to their very position and plans in Bengal . The primary cause of the
Battle of Buxar war therefore, the
conflict between the English and the Nawab for the sovereign power of Bengal.
The misuse of the farman of 1717 and the dastaks by the British and the
consequent abolition of all duties on internal trade by the Nawab was a
contributory factor. Mir Qasim was defeated in a series of battles in 1763 and
fled to Avadh, where he formed and alliance with Shuja-ud-daula , Nawab of
Avadh, and Shah Alam II, the fugitive Mughal emperor. The forces fo the three
allies clashes with the Company’s army at Buxar in October 1764 and were
thoroughly routed.
The
Battle of Buxar was one of the most decisive battles in Indian history, for it
demonstrated the superiority of English arms over the combined forces of two of
the major Indian powers, Bengal and Avadh. The battle firmly established the
British as masters of Bengal, Bihar and Orissa. From Shah Alam II, who was
still the titular head of the Mughal Empire, the Company secured the Diwani (the
right ot collect revenue) of Bengal, Bihar and Orissa. Thus, its control over
Bengal was legalized. On Mir-Jafar’s death in 1754, they put his second son,
Nizam-ud-daulah, on the throne and extractedca treaty. Now, the Nawab was
required to disband most of his army and to administer Bengal through a Deputy
Subedhar who was to be nomninated by the company and who could not be dismissed
without its approval. The company thus gained supreme control over the
administration(Nizamat) of Bengal.
The
Nawab of Avadh was made to pay a war indemnity of five million rupees to the
Company . Morever, the two signed an alliance by which the Company promised to
support the Nawab against any outside attack
provided he paid for the services of the troops sent to his aid. This
alliance amade the Nawab a dependent of the Company . The British had decided
to consolidate their acquisition of Bengal and to use Avadh as a buffer state
between their possession and the Marathas.
CONQUEST FO MAHARASHTRA
Peshwa Madhava Rao, who succeded his father Peshwa Balaji
Rao in 1761 and who ranks among the great Peshwas, maintained unity among the
Maratha chiefs and nobles and very soon recovered the power and prestige of the
Maratha which they lost in the third Battle of Panipat. He came into contact
with the English and was conscious of their military efficiency, but he did not
attach much value to them and regarded them as an insignificant factor in the
Indian politics. The British became conscious of the Marathas in the
fulfillment of their ambition of building an empire in India and, therefore,
were keen to weaken their power at the erarliest opportunity. They got their
opportunity very soon after the death and Peshwa Madhava Rao in 1775 to 1782,
known as the First Anglo-Maratha War.
SECOND ANGLO-MARATHA WAR
After the creation of the Madras Presidency in 1801, the
only major Indian power left outside the sphere of British control were the
Marathas, whose internal affairs further deteriorated within a span of 20 years
after the First Anglo-Maratha war. The internal squabbles of the Marathas led
to a new round of hostilities between the English and the Marathas. This
resulted in the Second –Anglo –Maratha War(1903-05) . Wellesley’s aggressive
policy of interference in the internal affairs of the Marathas was and
important factor.
Wellesley, who became the Governor-General in 1798, felt it
imperative to bring as many Indian
States as possible under British control. One of the
important methods which the used to achieve his political aims was the
Subsidiary Alliance. Under this system:
1. The ruler of the allying Indian States was
compelled to accept the permanent stationing of a British force within his
territory and also to pay a subsidy for its maintenance;
2. A British Resident was posted at the court;
3. Indian ruler could not employ any European
in his service without the approval of the British;
4. He could not negotiate with any other Indian
ruler without consulting the Governor-general;
5. The British undertook to defend the ruler
from his enemies; and
6. Also promised non-interfenence in internal
affairs of the allied state.
Among the last capable Maratha
chiefs were Mahadji Sindhia, Ahilya Bai Holkar, Tukoji HOlkar and Peshwa
Madhava Rao II , who died in 1794, 1795, 1796 and 1797 respectively. Nana
Phadnis, the chief minister to the Peshwa, served the Maratha state zealously
after the murder of Peshwa Narayan Rao, but later his ambition to keep the
power of the state to himself harmed the interest of the Marathas.
Q . WHAT IS TREATY OF SALBAI?
ANS: After first
Anglo-Maratha War, peace was finally concluded in 1782 by the Treaty of Salbai.
According to the treaty, (a) both parties agreed to return each other’s
territory conquered during the course of the war; (b) the English gave up the
cause of Raghunatha Rao who was to be given a pension by the Treaty of Salbsai.
This war, though it did not end in victory for either side, gave the British 20 years of peace with the
Marathas, the strongest Indian power of the day. The treaty enabled the British
to exert pressure on Mysore as the Marathas promised to help them in recovering
their territories from Haider Ali. Thus the British, by the war and the treaty,
on the one hand, saved themselves from the combined opposition of Indian powers,
and on the other, succeeded in dividing the Indian powers. The treaty was in
fact a successful stroke of diplomacy on
the part of Warren Hastings.
THIRD ANGLO MARATHA WAR
The
second Anglo-Maratha War had no doubt shattered the power of the Maratha chiefs
but not their spirit. The English had to fight another war, known as the Third
Anglo Maratha War(1817-1818). However, once again the Marathas failed to evolve
a concerted and well-thought out plan of action. The Governor-General, Lord
Hastings, struck back with characteristic vigor. He compelled Scindhia to
accept British suzerainty, and defeated the armies of the Peshwa, Bhonsle and
HOlkar. The consequences of this war sealed the fate of the Marathas once for all. The Peshwa was
dethroned and pensioned off at Bithur near Kanpur. His territories were annexed
and the enlarge Presidency of Bombay was brought into existence . However, in
order to satisfy Maratha pride, the small kingdom of Satara was created out of
the Peshwa’s lands and given to the descendant of Chatrapatti Shivaji who ruled
it as a complete dependent of the British.
CONQUEST FO SINDH
The
conquest and annexation fo Sindh by the British was partly due to the
commercial advantages of River Indus. It was also caused by the growing Anglo-Russian
rivalry in Europe and Asia and the
consequent British fears that Russia might attack India through Afghanistan or
Persia.
Sindh
was opened to British trade by a treaty signed in 1832 between the Amirs fo
Sindh and the British. Soon after, the chiefs of Sindh, known as Amirs, were
left with no independent power and could no longer work in cooperation with
each others. The Amirs were not recognized by the English. Sindh was finally,
annexed in 1843 after a brief campaign by Sir Charles Napier . The annexation
of Sindh was purely an out come of British imperialism and was criticized by
one and all. Charles Napier himself wrote: “We have no right to seize Sindh.Yet
we shall do so , and a very advantageous, useful, human piece of rascality it
will be”. Even the Court of Directors
described it as unjust and impolitic and inconsistent with the true interests
and honour of the Indian government. At one point of time, they even threatened
Ellenbrough, the then governor-General, to call him back from India.
POLICY OF RING-FENCE
( 1757-1813)
During
this period, the British, as Lee-Warner says, ‘endeavored as far as possible to
live within a Ring Fence, and beyond that they avoided intercourse with the
chiefs as the English Company was not yet strong enough to interfere in the
internal affairs of the Indian states.
Warren
Hastings, confronted with the task of safeguarding British territories against
the encroachments of the Maratha and the militant rulers of Mysore, generally
followed the policy of a Ring-Fence. The Pitt’s India Act of 1784 even laid
down that the Home Government should not approve of the intervention of her
officers in India in the internal affairs of the Indian States. After the
battle of Buxar, Avadh lay at the mercy of the British but they did not annex
it. After the Rohilla war; Warren Hastings conferred the conquered territories
on the Nawab of Avadh instead of
retaining them; the First Anglo- Maratha war ended in the restoration of
the status quo by the Treaty of Salbai and the four Mysore wars benefited the
allies of the British (Marathas and Nizam ) more than the British themselves at
least in the short term.
Yet it
cannot be denied that during this period the Company did intervene in the
affairs of the Indian states on a number of occasions. Warren Hastings, for
instance, fought the First Maratha War (1775-82) and the Second Mysore War
(1780-1784) without any justifiable reason. Similarly, Lord Cornwallis fought
the Third Mysore war(1790-1792) and annexed half of its territory. Lord
Wellesley fought the Fourth Mysore War(1798-1799) and the Second Maratha War,
and also compelled the rulers of Hyderabad and Avadh to sign the Subsidiary
treaties with the Company. Lord Minto not only concluded the Treaty of Amritsar
with Ranjit Singh but also granted protection of the Cis-Sutlej states whose
very existence was being endangered by Ranjit Singh.
POLICY OF SUBORDINATE
ISOLATION (1813-58)
During this period of 45 years, the British East India
Company made all States subordinate to itself by compelling their rulers to
sign Subsidiary treaties with it. The Indian States, without exception, were
prevailed upon to accept the Company as the paramount power in India. They were
required to give either money or territory, so that the Company could maintain
a Subsidiary force either in the concerned State or outside it for its
protection. The concerned State could no longer appoint non-English Europeans
in its service. It could not conduct any foreign relations except through the
British government. In all its dispute with other States, it had to accept
British arbitration. In turn, the Company promised the territorial integrity of
the State. In practice, however , all the Indian States entering into
subsidiary alliance, and being dependent on the Company for self protection,
began to suffer from all the evils of ‘dual government’ like those which had
destroyed Bengal between 1765 and 1722 . Regarding pitfalls of the Subsidiary
system, Sir Thomas Munro rightly remarked that, it is the natural tendency to
render the government of every country in which it exists weak and oppressive,
to extinguish all honorable spirits among the higher grades of society, to
degrade and impoverish the whole people.
POLICY OF SUBORDINATE UNION(1858-1947)
The
Revolt of 1857 made the British reverse their policy towards the princely
States. Prior to the Revolt, the British had made use of every opportunity to
annex the Indian States, but after it they abandoned the policy of annexation
in favour of annexation of another
policy known as the policy o’subordinate Union’. During the Revolt, most of the
native ruler had not only remained loyal to the British but had actively helped
the latter in suppressing it. Their
loyalty was now rewarded with the announcement that their right to adopt heirs
would be respected and the integrity of their territories was guaranteed
against future annexation. As pointed out by Lord Canning in 1860 –“It was long
ago said by Sir John Malcolm…… that if we could keep up a number of Native
States without political power, but as royal instruments, we should exist in
India as long as our naval supremacy was maintained. Of the substantial truth
of this opinion I have no doubt; and the recent events have made it more
deserving of our attention than ever”.
BRITISH COLONIALISM IN INDIA
The British colonial rule in India is generally divided into
three stages: First stage(1757-1813) represents the mercantile phase. Second
stage(1813-1860) represents the free trade phase and Third stage(1860 onwards )
represents the finance capital phase.
Mercantalism : During the mercantile phase the aim of all
activity was to accumulate wealth. In order to pursue a favorable trade, the
British company started aggressive policies in India. The government passed the
Regulating Act and the Pitt’s India Act
to gain more and the direct control over the affairs of the company. The
company officials transferred their fortunes acquired in Indian to England. The
financial bleeding of India started with the British gaining hegemony over
Indian territories. New revenue settlements were imposed upon the agrarian
structure. The fought several wars, crushed many princely States and brought
them under the colonial aurthority. Soon the mercantile phase came to an end.
Free Trade : By the dawn of the 19th century, the
British became an industrial power following Industrial Revolution in England.
It was in need of raw material to feed its industries. The emerging capitalist
class found the Company a stumbling block for its market. The Company’s
monopoly in India was bitterly attacked by the British industrial community.
Thus, the need for raw material and markets for the British manufactured goods
resulted in the formulation of free trade policy towards India. The special
feature of this policy was that it was a one way traffic wherein British goods
entered India virtually free while Indian products entering Britain faced high
tariffs. The protective policy towards British trade was thoroughly guarded,
leaving India-made products to face stiff competition.
PERMANENT SETTLEMENT
Anxious to secure a regular payment of land revenue, the
British decided to ‘settle’ the payment of the government demand with certain
intermediaries who would hold themselves responsible for payment of the
revenue.After prolonged deliberations ‘permanent settlement’ was introduced by
Lord Cornwallis in Bengal and Bihar in 1793. Under this system. Zamindars were
giben full rights of ownership over their estates, who were till now only
revenue farmers. Lord Minto and Lord Wellesley, the successors of Lord
Cornwallis, were great believers in
large estates property rights, fixed revenues and fixed taxation; consequently
they tried to introduced permanent settlement in the newly acquired regions of
northern India. This happened in Orissa as well as certain parts fo Madras
Presidency in the first two decades of the 19th century.
Purpose and Impact :
The important purpose of this policy was to
create a new class of landlords based on the English model as the social
butteress of English rule. It was felt that with the small number of English,
holding down a vast population, it was absolutely essential to establish a
social basis for their power through the creation of a new class whose
interests, through receiving a subsidiary share in the spoils (One-eleventh)
would be bound up with the maintenance of English rule. This contention was
proved several times and the best example would be the 1857 revolt during which
the landed aristocracy stood finely on the side of the British, which made Lord
Canning to call zamindars as ‘breakwaters’ in the storm. Its impact on their estates preferred to live in luxury in
cities and became sort of distant suction pumps; literally sucking the blood of
the peasants. As the income from land decreased due to high rents and taxes and
increase in population, the gap between the zamindar and tiller began to grow
wide. Thus, the greatest amount of agrarian unrest can be found in zamindar
areas.
OTHER SYSTEMS :
In the united provinces of Agra and Awadh and also in Punjab, a new method of land revenue system
was introduced known as ‘Mahalwari’ or joint village system. Under this system, the assessment was made on
the principle of ownership farming. But all the owners of land in the ‘Mahal’
or village were made jointly responsible for payment of land revenue. The head
of each village had a special responsibil8ity for collecting land revenue.
Under the Mahalwari system provision was made for periodical of land revenue.
In the
Central provinces, where the British took over the administration from the
rulers, the land revenue system known as ‘Malguzari system’ was introduced.
Under this system. The ‘Malguzars’, who were originally village officers, were
given proprietary rights on land. Here too the government retained the right of
making periodical revision of land revenue.
All
these systems departed fundamentally from the traditional land systems of the
country. All over the country, land was now made saleable, mortagage-able and
alienable. In fact, the entire structure of rural society began to break up.
JUDICIAL POLICY
In the early days of its rule, the Company was satisfied
with the provision of courts of the trial of cases of the Europeans, and early
in the 18th century, Mayours’ courts were established in the three
presidency towns, with the right of appeal to the local government and in
certain cases. In the King-in-Council, at the time of the transfer of Diwani to
the Company, Clive set up what was known as the ‘Dual system’. Under Warren
Hastings, Collector was placed in charge of the local civil and criminal
courts. Above these courts were the Sadr Diwani Adalat (for civil cases ) and
Sadar Nizamt Adalat (for criminal cases). The Regulating Act of 1773 brought into existence the Supreme
Courts of Calcutta which administered English law to the confusion of Indian
litigants. Under Cornwallis, significant changes were made. These were the
separation of judicial and executive powers in the district courts and the
introduction of the Rule of Law. It was in the mid-19th century that
the penal and criminal codes were completed largely due to the efforts Lord
Macaulay. The Indian High Courts Act was passed in 1861. In 1865, High Courts
were established at Calcutta, Madras and Bombay and, a short time later, at
Allahabad to replace the Sadr courts of Diwani and Nizamat.
However, the development of judiciary was in line with other
changes in the colonial administration. When Lord Ripon tried to remedy the
evil by introducing the Ilbert bill, there was a lot of opposition from there was
a lot of opposition from the European community and the same could not be
passed in the original form. The judiciary was used only to legitimize the
exploitation of the colonial rulers and their allies, viz. zamindars,
moneylenders and civil servants.
SOCIAL POLICY
After establishing complete control over Indian territories
and taking firm steps to encourage trade, Britain found it necessary to evolve
a social policy to administer the country in a way favorable both for the
country and the British Government. In this direction, it took several steps to
ameliorate the social life of the people. The important among them are the
abolition of ‘Sati’ (1892), prohibition of infanticide (1795 and 1802 ),
enabling widows to get married by law (the Hindu Widow’s Remarriage Act of 1856 ), revival of the
ancient heritage of India and even encouraging the expression of the people’s
opinion.
These
reformatory activities were, however, carried as long as they did not come into
conflict with commercial interests and profit motives, reform movement
following g the 1857 revolt. IN fact, it started making alliance with the
conservative classes thereafter. Thus, its progressive outlook and activities
were occasioned because of the fact that the colonial power from the 19th century onwards
propagated that it look on itself the responsibilities of bringing up the
‘White man’s burden’. But it can be said that whatever benefits that Indian
society got from the British was because of the economics exploitation of the
day associated with some fair principles in their home country.
BRITISH ECONOMIC POLICIES AND THEIR IMPACT
Before the advent of the British in India, especially during
the 17th and 18th centuries, India was the industrial
workshop of the world in a pre-capitalist sense. It was endowed with fertile
soil and a prosperous agriculture; a good geographical location and climate
suitable for production, possessing mineral resources. Centres in Western
India, Bengal and the Coromandal Coast had built up extensive international trading
links, financed manufacturing in the interior, engaged in ship building and
even developed sophisticated forms of banking and exchange . Such a prosperous India turned into a dumping
house of finished goods from Britain and exporter of raw materials in the wake
of crude and cruel imperialistic policies of British colonial rule.
A Bottleneck : The economic policies of the colonial power
proved to be the chief bottleneck in the development of the Indian economy .
The British rule resulted in the drastic changes in the system of land tenure
and land ownership . In the commercialization of agriculture, in rural
indebtedness, in growth fo modern industry (though lopsided) and rise of
capitalist class, the land revenue system introduced by the British caused a
radical change in property relations in land. A new proprietary class,
consisting mainly of businessmen, came on the scene. They looked up on
zamindari as an income yielding asset. The main motive of the British behind
this policy was to stabilize and increase its source of revenue and to create a
loyal class of landlords in its colony to assist in its shameless and ruthless
plunder of Indian economy. The impact was disastrous. The cultivators, unable
to withstand the burden of rent and taxes soon turned into tenants-at-will.
0 comments: