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.
No comments:
Post a Comment