Note: This post is primarily focused on the post-1858 “British Raj” – that is, on things after the 1850s “Indian Rebellion.” For things before that, see this post. (Warning: This post contains some disturbing pictures.)
One of the most controversial topics in the entire history of the British Empire …
The war that turned India into a longtime British colony … arguably began in distant North America. It was called the “French and Indian War,” and it began in colonial Pennsylvania in 1754 – with an incident that involved George Washington. In 1756, the war soon spread to Europe, as the “Seven Years’ War” officially began. And, in 1757, the war then fatefully spread to the massive Indian subcontinent in South Asia. The war’s fighting in India is now known to history as the “Third Carnatic War.” In the First and Second Carnatic Wars (in some prior decades), the European powers had been fighting among themselves to control the Indian subcontinent. These powers had even included the French, who had some local colonization plans of their own. But the British were now determined to kick the French out of India for good. And, in 1757, the British began to do so at the fateful Battle of Plassey.
Lord Clive meeting with Mir Jafar after the Battle of Plassey, 1757
The Company rule in India, and British rule generally, begin with the 1757 Battle of Plassey
The 1757 Battle of Plassey is now marked as the official beginning of the British rule in India. It’s true that the war’s fighting would actually be continuing for some years after Plassey. It’s also true that some future British wars would then expand the borders of British India even further, as one local Indian power after another (sadly) was forced to capitulate to the British. But 1757 is still marked as the beginning of “Company rule in India.” This is because India then began to be ruled by a private corporation: the British East India Company. This was a corporation with political and military power. It had its own armies and navies. And, some years earlier, the Company had been granted a massive monopoly by the British Parliament. Perhaps partially because of this, the East India Company eventually became the most powerful corporation that the world has ever seen. At its height, the British East India Company may have controlled roughly half of the world’s international trade. The Company certainly had some vocal critics, even back in the British Isles – where Adam Smith once railed against the company in his famous book “The Wealth of Nations.” (More about that in a future blog post.) And the Company was definitely hated throughout British India, where its name became synonymous with corruption and tyranny.
An official of the British East India Company, circa 1760s
But the Indian Rebellion of the 1850s replaces Company rule with direct rule by the Crown
These prior events each added some gunpowder to the magazine. But what lit the spark for the so-called “Indian Mutiny” of 1857 (as the British called it)? I plan to give a brief overview of this conflict in a future blog post. Thus, I will now quote from this other blog post to explain. Specifically, this blog post notes that “One of the incidents fomenting this rebellion was the British military’s use of cartridges wrapped in paper greased with (forbidden) cow and pig fat. The cow fat was forbidden to the Hindus, while the pig fat was forbidden to the Muslims. When a regiment of the Bengal Native Infantry had to open these cartridges by mouth, it thus violated their religious sensibilities, and was enough to cause widespread rebellion throughout British India. It’s not clear if this was really true, but it is clear that the natives believed this. Unfortunately, both sides committed horrendous atrocities in this war, and the British public was shocked by the atrocities of both sides at various times. For example, there was an initial upsurge in British support for the East India Company after the Cawnpore Massacre perpetrated by the rebels, but a loss of sympathy for it after terrible reprisals perpetrated by the company. The result was the eventual dissolution of the company, with its rule over India replaced by that of the British government in London in 1858, with the ‘Government of India Act 1858’ passed by the British Parliament. This was a watershed in the history of colonial India, and in the story of [Queen] Victoria’s empire as a whole.” (see source) I should note that the British East India Company would only be dissolved entirely in a somewhat later year (specifically, in 1874). However, the Company had already lost control of India by the year 1858. Thus, 1858 now marks the official end of this “Company rule in India” period. And, more importantly for our present subject, this year officially marks the beginning of a new period for British India: the actual “British Raj.” Since I plan to cover the prior “Company rule” in a future post, the post-1858 “British Raj” will be the primary subject of this particular blog post. As defined in this way, the “British Raj” was born in the desperate violence of this revolt – sometimes known locally as the “Sepoy” Rebellion, after a type of Indian infantryman. The British rule would then continue for nine additional decades.
Cawnpore Massacre, 1857 – which brought terrible reprisals from the East India Company
What were the immediate local results of the rebellion? What did it mean for the Raj?
What were the immediate local results of this great “Indian Rebellion”? That is, did the revolt improve things for the still-oppressed people of India? The post-1858 Raj certainly involved plenty of problems for the locals, as any student of the period will soon learn. Nonetheless, most historians seem to acknowledge that the local rule of the British East India Company was even worse. Thus, some believe that things may have actually improved (however incrementally) for the people of India, in the aftermath of this great revolt. However, I should immediately acknowledge for my readers that any such improvements were fairly modest. The direct rule of the British Crown in London had some significant problems as well, as the people of the region continued to suffer from the British tyranny. Nonetheless, the “Indian Rebellion” may have actually achieved something for the locals. At the very least, it put a final end to the greater evil of being ruled by a private corporation. And, even more importantly, the Rebellion may have laid the groundwork for an Indian liberation movement that would be based less on armed uprisings, and more on nonviolence – as practiced by a later generation, which was led by Mahatma Gandhi. Nonviolence had the potential to bring on some even greater gains, without the significant cost in human life that had earlier been suffered locally during this Rebellion. Sadly, though, these great gains would only come later, in the distant years of the twentieth century. In the meantime, there would be some other developments for British India, as the story of the British Raj was continuing to unfold there.
Stereographic image of Victoria Terminus, Bombay – completed in 1888
From the nineteenth-century British Raj to India’s limited involvement in the Great War
The early decades of the post-1858 “British Raj” saw some major developments elsewhere in the Empire. The British continued to expand their influence in distant Africa, as did the other European powers to be found there. This was part of the European “Scramble for Africa.” During this time, the young Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi spent more than twenty years of his life in British South Africa. Moreover, the young Gandhi actually campaigned against the pre-apartheid segregation policies there. (More about that here.) The younger Gandhi even served as a medic in the Second Boer War, in an attempt to convince the British that people from India could indeed fight. This “Boer War” was fought right there in British South Africa., where Gandhi was then living. But, in 1914, the First World War broke out in continental Europe. The British and their allies were now being bogged down in the trenches of the Western Front. Thus, the British now called for some additional troops from elsewhere in the Empire. It was during this war that Mr. Gandhi, now 45 years of age, returned to India in 1915. It was then believed that, if troops from India were to fight on behalf of the Allies, then the British might finally become inclined to grant independence to their massive colony in India. Thus, even the pacifist Mohandas Gandhi was now calling for Indian recruits to fight on behalf of the Allies. Many of them fought in the Middle East, where the British were now convincing the local Arabs to revolt against the Ottoman Turks. In 1918, the “Great War” finally ended with an armistice. But India’s independence, did not then come. India (sadly) remained a British colony, just as it had before the war. Thankfully for India, its casualties in the Great War had been fairly small, compared to those of some other parts of the Empire. But the Second World War, when it eventually came, would be much worse for India. And a lot of other events for the independence movement would be happening in the meantime.
Mahatma Gandhi being welcomed in Karachi in 1916, after his return to India from South Africa
Indian troops en route to relieve French and American units, in the German spring offensive
In the interwar years, the Indian independence movement (led by Gandhi) continues to grow
In the interwar years, British soldiers perpetrated an infamous massacre in India in 1919. Specifically, a crowd in Amritsar was peacefully protesting against the hated British policies. Inexplicably, the local British commander then ordered his troops to open fire on the crowd. At least 379 people were killed. Some would place the death toll even higher at 700. If the massacre was intended to strengthen the “British Raj” in India, it had precisely the opposite effect. It was a public relations disaster for the British, both in the British Isles and in the Indian subcontinent. And, even more importantly, the massacre backfired enough to grow the Indian independence movement. The interwar years also saw the Salt March of 1930, led by Mahatma Gandhi – who was now age 61. This was a protest against the British monopoly on salt, possibly one of the most hated aspects of the Raj – which is really saying something. Incidentally, some of Mahatma Gandhi’s famous fasting was directed at those of his own people who were violently resisting the Raj. And his hunger strikes had a serious effect on public opinion in India.
Mural depicting 1919 Amritsar massacre, perpetrated by British troops
Mahatma Gandhi leading the famous 1930 Salt March
The complicated legacy of the Second World War, which turns out to be a crucible for India
But, in 1939, the Second World War began in Europe, with the (Nazi) invasion of Poland. Thus, events in distant Europe would again be having an effect upon events in British India. In 1941, the war came much closer to home for India. The Imperial Japanese had just attacked some other British colonies in Continental Asia itself – specifically, in Singapore and Malaya. Thus, the British Empire (including the Raj) had now been drawn into the Asia-Pacific War of World War II. Eventually, the fighting would even be reaching the gates of India itself. Mahatma Gandhi then chose this moment to harden his prior stance on nonviolence. Specifically, Gandhi said that the Indians should not get involved in another British war. But, despite Gandhi’s recommendations, many in India were now getting involved, and the country was now being divided into two camps. One side wanted to help the British, while the other side wanted to help the invading Japanese. Thus, there were now two armies in India – one fighting for the British, and the other fighting for Imperial Japan. Each group hoped that its actions would lead to the independence of British India. Those who fought for Imperial Japan would later get pensions from the postwar Indian government. But no such pensions were ever given to those who fought for the British in World War II. This was despite the fact that there were 62 times more Indians who had fought for the British in this conflict. Those who helped the Japanese were seen as “freedom fighters,” while those who helped the British were seen as “collaborators.” Between the two sides, more than 1 in 200 Indians died in World War II, roughly the same death rate as that suffered by British Australia. Thus, this war was another crucible for British India.
Child who starved to death during the Bengal famine of 1943
Captured soldiers of the British Indian Army who were executed by the Japanese
The Hindus and Muslims of British India each have their own vision for the subcontinent
By the war’s end, there were signs that Mahatma Gandhi’s independence movement would finally be bearing fruit. His nonviolent resistance to the “British Raj” was finally changing public opinion back in the British Isles. Thus, the British were now seriously contemplating a total withdrawal from India. They even invited Mahatma Gandhi to attend some landmark talks in the British Isles about the future of India. But there were two major religions in British India: Hinduism and Islam. And these two groups, to put it mildly, had slightly different visions for the subcontinent’s future. The Muslims wanted a state that would have Islam as its official religion. But most of the population of India were Hindus, some of whom wanted to establish Hinduism as the official state religion of India. Other Hindus, such as Gandhi himself, were in favor of freedom of religion. In contrast to Gandhi’s earlier fasting, his fasting during this period would now be directed at those of his own people who were involved in religious violence. Again, these hunger strikes had a significant effect upon Indian public opinion, and tended to serve their purpose.
A refugee special train at Ambala Station, during the Partition of India
Victims of Muslim rioters, with vultures feeding on remains – Great Calcutta Killings, 1946
Eventually, India and Pakistan become independent, with many later wars between them
Eventually, a compromise was worked out with the blessing of the British. Specifically, the British would now be forming two separate states out of the former territory of the Raj. In the words of a crucial act passed by the British Parliament, “As from the fifteenth day of August, nineteen hundred and forty-seven, two independent Dominions shall be set up in India, to be known respectively as India and Pakistan.” (Source: Indian Independence Act 1947) The Hindu-majority country of India would soon write freedom of religion into its 1949 Constitution. By contrast, Pakistan would soon write a Constitution creating an “Islamic Republic.” Many in both regions were now leaving their homes, to migrate to whichever part of the subcontinent was deemed to be the most agreeable to their views. Nonetheless, there was immediately a war between India and Pakistan. This war was fought from 1947 to 1948. Another war would be fought in 1965. In 1971, there was another such war, in which Bangladesh became independent from Pakistan. And, in 1973, a new Constitution of Pakistan established Islam as the state religion of Pakistan. And still other wars have been fought since this time, particularly over the disputed region of the Kashmir. Incidentally, the Constitution of Bangladesh was amended in 1988, to establish Islam as the official state religion of Bangladesh. However, another part of the Constitution of Bangladesh extends some amount of freedom of religion to Hindus, Buddhists, Christians, and other religions. Thus, it’s true that some things have definitely improved after the British withdrawal from South Asia. But it’s also true that the post-Raj Indian subcontinent has likewise had its share of problems.
Partition of India – green regions were all part of Pakistan by 1948, and orange ones part of India
Indian troops landing on Srinagar airfield, during the India-Pakistan War of 1947-1948
Conclusion: In many ways, the Raj’s influence is considerable – perhaps even inescapable
The legacy of the British Raj continues to be debated today. It is debated in the British Isles, it is debated in India and Pakistan, and it is today debated in many other parts of the world as well. It remains a sore point in the history of the British Empire, where India was once considered to be the “jewel in the crown” (to use the popular phrase). For better or for worse, it also made the English language into a major part of the subcontinent’s history. Thus, a significant portion of the contemporary world’s English speakers are now coming from India and Pakistan – and, to a lesser degree, from Bangladesh. India may well be the most populous overseas territory that any empire has ever possessed. It is unlikely that the world will ever come to a common verdict on the history of the British Raj, or of the British Empire as a whole. But one thing is clear: in many ways, the Raj’s influence upon world history is considerable – perhaps even inescapable.
“We, the people of India, having solemnly resolved to constitute India into a sovereign socialist secular democratic republic and to secure to all its citizens: JUSTICE, social, economic and political; LIBERTY of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship; EQUALITY of status and of opportunity; and to promote among them all FRATERNITY assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity and integrity of the Nation; IN OUR CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY this twenty-sixth day of November, 1949, do hereby adopt, enact, and give to ourselves this Constitution.”
– Preamble to the current “Constitution of India,” with this part of their country’s Constitution being ratified in 1950 – incidentally, the word “socialist” was later removed from this Preamble by a constitutional amendment in 1977, since the country was now moving away from socialism
If you liked this post, you might also like:
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment