ASPECTS OF COLONIAL STATE
Revolt of 1857
The Revolt of 1857, which broke out in Northern and Central India, shook the very foundation of the British Empire in India and nearly swept away British rule. It began with a mutiny of the sepoys, but soon engulfed wide regions and people. Millions of peasants, artisans and soldiers fought heroically for over a year and by their courage and sacrifice wrote a glorious chapter in the history of India. The revolt was truly a watershed in the history of the British rule in India. It changed the character of the British rule, marking an end of the East India Company and bringing British India directly under the British crown.
Causes of the Revolt
There is considerable controversy regarding the actual causes of the Revolt. Historians, especially the British, have emphasized the importance of military grievances and the greased cartridges affair. But recent research has revealed that the greased cartridge was not only the only cause nor even the most important. On the contrary, there were a variety of causes – political, social, religious and economic – which combined to produce the rebellion.
Political Causes. The British policy of annexation had disturbed the political equilibrium in the country. The indiscriminate application of the Doctrine of Lapse by Lord Dalhousie had caused widespread discontent. Several principalities were annexed around this time. The state of Awadh was annexed in 1956. Nana Saheb, the adopted son of Baji Rao II, was refused the pension of the Peshwa when Baji Rao II died in 1851. Similarly the British refused to succeed the adopted son of Jhansi to the throne. The Mughals were disgraced by Dalhousie when he announced in 1849 that the successor of Bahadur Shah would have to abandon the Red Fort as his residence. All these had alarmed the other Princely States. The annexation of Princely States was not a blow to the princely families alone, but to their dependant subjects as well. On the eve of the rebellion, Indians believed that the existence of all states was threatened and annexation of the remaining states was a question of time. These fears were inflamed by the very foreignness of the British rule. Unlike foreign conquerors before them, they remained perpetual foreigners in India and looked down upon the Indians with contempt as racially inferior.
Administrative Causes. The British system of law and administration were very unpopular. Not only was the Indian aristocracy deprived of power and position, but all high posts, civil and military, were reserved for the Europeans. The upper classes were hard hit by their exclusion from the well-paid higher posts in the administration. The administrative machinery of the East India Company was inefficient and inadequate. The judicial system that the Company introduced in India became an instrument of oppression. Moreover, people were hard hit by the prevalence of widespread corruption at all levels of administration. Racial discrimination also was evident everywhere.
Economic Causes: An important cause of the popular discontent was the economic exploitation of the country by British and the complete destruction of its traditional economic system. The economic policies of the British, especially the land revenue policy, was the most unpopular and they impoverished the vast mass of peasants, artisans and handicraftsmen as also a large number of traditional zamindars and chiefs. The Many taluqdars (hereditary landlords) were deprived of their position and resources. Large estates were confiscated and auctioned off. Thus the new land revenue settlement made by the East India Company in the newly annexed states, made the aristocracy poor without benefiting the peasantry, who fell into the clutches of the unprincipled moneylenders and had to suffer the weight of heavy land revenue. The growing poverty of the people made them desperate and led them to join the revolt in the hope of improving their lot.
Social and Religious Causes. The traditional Indian social system and culture appeared to be in danger under the reformist zeal of the British administrators. The introduction of civil laws had considerably reduced the powers wielded traditionally by the Maulavis and Pundits. The missionaries were given all kinds of facilities for the propagation of Christianity. They openly ridiculed and denounce the traditional cuatoms and practices of the people. The Religious Disabilities Act of 1856 modified Hindu customs by which a convert to Christianity could inherit his ancestral property. The Indians generally believed that the British were conspiring to convert them into Christianity.
The conservative religious sentiments of many people were also aroused by some humanitarian measures which the Government had undertaken on the advice of Indian reformers. Abolition of the custom of sati, legislation of widows’ remarriage and the opening of western education to girls appeared to them as undue interference in their customs and religion. Religious sentiments were also hurt by the official policy of taxing lands belonged to temples and mosques which had been exempted from taxation by the Indian rulers.
Military Causes. There was widespread discontent among the Indian soldiers serving in the British army. Majority of the soldiers and junior officers of the British Indian army were Indians. They resented their low pay and poor prospects of promotion. Military campaigns of the British outside the Indian territory caused them considerable hardships. They were also not paid any overseas allowances. They were paid much lower salary than was paid to the European soldiers. No Indian could rise higher than a subedar. Another cause of military discontent was the General Enlistment Act, which made it compulsory for all recruits to cross the seas whenever ordered to do so.
The immediate cause for the revolt of the sepoys was the episode of the greased cartridges. The new Royal Enfield rifle was introduced into the army shortly before the Revolt of 1857. Its cartridges had a greased paper cover whose end had to be bitten off before the cartridge was loaded into the rifle. The grease was in some instances composed of cow and pig fat. This issue is said to have agitated both Hindu and Muslim soldiers since it would endanger their religion.
Beginning and Spread of the Revolt
It is not yet clear whether the revolt was spontaneous and unplanned or the result of a careful and secret organization. One of the peculiarities of the study of the Revolt of 1857 is that it has to be based entirely on British records. The rebels have left behind no records. As they worked illegally, they kept no records. Moreover, as they were defeated, their version of events died with them. While one group of historians has asserted that the revolt was the result of a widespread and well-organized conspiracy, another group forcefully denies the role of any planning in it. The truth seems to lie between the two extreme views. It is likely that there was an organized conspiracy to revolt but that the organization had not progresses sufficiently when the revolt broke out accidentally.
The mutiny was sparked off on May 10, 1857 when the soldiers of the 3rd Cavalry Regiment at Meerut revolted protesting against the introduction of the new cartridges. Next day the rebellious soldiers marched to Delhi and proclaimed the old Mughal emperor Bahadur Shah II as the King Emperor of Hindustan. The success of the rebellion in Delhi created a sensation in various parts of North and Central India and rebellions broke out in Awadh, Rohilkhand, West Bihar and many other towns and cities of the North-Western Provinces. Bahadur Shah soon wrote letters to all the chiefs and rulers of India urging them to organize a confederacy of Indian states to fight and replace the British rule.
The storm centres of the revolt were at Delhi, Kanpur, Lucknow, Bareilly, Jhansi and Arrah in Bihar. The leader of the revolt at Kanpur was Nana Saheb, the adopted son of Peshwa Baji Rao II. Nana Saheb, assisted by his devoted follower Tantia Tope, assumed the role of a conquering hero and was proclaimed the Peshwa. At Jhansi Rani Lakshmibai, the widowed queen of the last ruler of Jhansi, led the rebellion. At Lucknow Begum Hazrat Mahal, the queen of Awadh declared her 11 year old son Birjis Qadar as Nawab. In Bihar a local Rajput Zamindar Kunwar Singh led the revolt. Another outstanding leader of the revolt was Maulavi Ahmadullah of Faridabad. Several towns of North-Western and Central Provinces such as Aligarh, Etawah, Farukkhabad, Bareilly etc., also rose in rebellion and independent governments were set up there under the former local chiefs.
Everywhere in northern and central India, the mutiny of the sepoys was followed by popular revolts of the civilian population. The people who rose in revolt took advantage of the situation to destroy the money-lenders’ account books and record of debts. They also attacked the British-established law courts, revenue offices and revenue records.
Much of the strength of the revolt lay in Hindu-Muslim unity. Among the soldiers and the people as well as among the leaders there was complete cooperation as between Hindus and Muslims. All the rebels recognized Bahadur Shah as their Emperor. The Hindus and Muslims were equally well represented at all levels of leadership. In those areas where revolt was successful, orders were immediately issued banning cow-slaughter out of respect for Hindu sentiments.
Though nominally Bahadurshah was the leader at Delhi, the real command was headed by General Bhakt Khan. Emperor Bahadurshah was perhaps the weakest link in the leadership of the revolt. He did not firmly support the revolt and wavered between his desire to rule as Emperor and the desire to save himself in the event of the defeat of the revolt.
LEADERS OF THE REVOLT
The storm-centres of the revolt 'were Delhi, Kanpur, Lucknow, Bareilly, Jhansi and Arrah. All these places threw up their own leaders who for all practical purposes remained independent, even though they accepted the suzerainty of Emperor Bahadur Shah.
Bakht Khan :In Delhi Bahadur Shah was the leader. But the real power lay with the soldiers. Bakht Khan, who had led the revolt of the soldiers at Bareilly, arrived in Delhi bn 3rd July, 1857.From that date on he exercised the real authority. He formed a Court of soldiers composed of both Hindu and Muslim rebels. But even before that the soldiers showed little regard for the authority of the Emperor, Bahadur Shah deplored the army officers for their "practice of coming into the Court carelessly dressed and in utter disregard to the forms of respect to the royalty"
Nana Saheb and Tantya Tope: At Kanpur the revolt was led by Nana Saheb, the adopted son of Peshwa Baji Rao 11. The rebellious sepoys also supported Nana Saheb and under his leadership both the military and civilian elements were united. They expelled the British from Kanpur and declared Nana Saheb as Peshwa who acknowledged Baliadur Shah as the Emperor of India. Most of the fighting was, however, carried on by Tantya Tope on his behalf, and it was Tantya Tope who passed into the popular legend as a great patriot and anti-British leader.
The Begum of Awadh: At Lucknow the Begum of Awadh provided the leadership and proclaimed her son, Birjis Kadr, as the Nawab of Awadh. But here again, the more popular leader was Maulavi Ahmadullah of Faizabad, who organised rebellions and fought the British.
Rani Lakshmi Bai: Rani Lakshmi Bai of Jhansi was another great popular leader. She believed that she had been robbed of her ruling rights in defiance of recognised Hindu law. Though she showed some hesitation at the initial stage, she fought valiantly once she joined the ranks of the rebels.
Kunwar Singh: But the most representative and outstanding leader was Kunwar Singh of Arrah. Under his leadership the military and civil rebellions were so completely fused that the British dreaded him most. With a war band of about 5,000, including about 600 Danapur sepoys and the rebellious Ramgarh state battalion he marched across hundreds of miles to reach Mirzapur, Banda and the vicinity of Kanpur. He reached up to Rewa state and it was thought that as soon as Rewa fell to the rebels, the British would be forced to move to the south. But, for some reasons, Kunwar Singh did not move southwards. He returned to Banda and then back to Arrah where he engaged and defeated the British troops. He was seriously injured and died on 27th April, 1858 in his ancestral house in the village of Jagdishpur.
Suppression of the RevoltAfter the initial setbacks, the British poured additional military forces and arms into the country. Delhi was captured on 20 September 1857 after a prolonged and bitter fighting. Bahadurshah was taken prisoner. He was tried and exiled to Rangoon. With the fall of Delhi the focal point of the revolt disappeared. Though other leaders continued the fight, they could not withstand the powerful British offensive against them. One by one, all the great leaders of the revolt fell. The Rani of Jhansi died on the field of battle on 17 June 1858. Having defeated, Nana Saheb escaped to Nepal early in 1859. Tantia Tope escaped into the jungles of Central India where he carried on bitter and brilliant guerilla warfare until April 1859 when he was finally captured. By the end of 1859, British authority over India was fully reestablished.
Causes of the Failure of the Revolt
The failure of the Revolt was a foregone conclusion. Some of the important factors for its failure are as follows.
The Revolt was not inspired by any positive and creative idea. It had no vision of a higher social order or higher political system. It lacked plan, propaganda and funds. The only thing which united the rebels was their desire to eliminate the British rule. Still, most of the leaders had desired only to restore their personal rule which the British had terminated through their policy of annexation.
The Revolt remained confined to a small part of North and Central India. The whole of Rajputana, Punjab, Eastern India including Bengal and the entire South India remained totally unaffected. The Sikhs, Marathas, Rajputs and the ruling chiefs of Eastern India did not take any part in the Revolt.
The rebel leaders lacked political leadership, military experience and strategic perception. None of them realized the consequences of the fall of Delhi, and took no measures for its joint defence.
There was little discipline among the rebels and their loyalties were fragile. Intellectually too they were no match to their adversary, whose military techniques were based on modern science and technology.
In strategy and tactics the British forces were far superior to the Indian rebels and worked under the orders of a highly organized Government in India which was supported by men and resources of the British empire.
There was no single great leader who could bring all the rebel groups into a single force with a definite policy and action. The activities of the rebel leaders were also confined within the narrow limits of self-interest.
The lack of interest shown by the intellectuals in the movement was also a serious drawback.
Repercussions of the Revolt
Even though the Revolt of 1857 ended in failure, it was the first great and direct threat to British rule in India. All the leaders and the soldiers who revolted had to sacrifice their lives. The victorious English troops committed inhuman atrocities upon the Indian people. Thousands of rebels were hanged publicly after a mock trial. The rebel villages were destroyed completely.
The Revolt of 1857 brought about fundamental changes in the character of the British administration. Some of them were the following.
1. The Queen’s Proclamation: This was the most important development. The Proclamation was read out by Lord Canning at a Durbar held on November 1, 1858 at Allahabad. The Proclamation announced the end of the rule of the East India Company and assumption of the Government of India directly by the Crown. Under the Proclamation, Lord Canning became the first Viceroy and Governor-General.
2. The Proclamation also declared the end of the era of further expansion of the British empire in India. It also promised non-interference in the religious affairs of the people, grant of equal protection of law and respect for ancient rights and customs of the people.
3. The Act for the Better Government of India, 1858 was passed, which terminated the process commenced by the Pitts India Act of 1784. The Act of 1858 made the Crown directly responsible for the management of Indian affairs. Following this, fundamental changes in the administrative set up were made in the executive, legislative and judicial administration of India by passing the Indian Councils Act of 1861.
4. Indians were associated with legislative matters and administration, and a humble beginning was made by the Indian Councils Act of 1861.
5. The British army was reorganized, increasing the proportion of the Europeans in the army. The field and other artillery was to be manned entirely by the Europeans. In order to put the policy of divide and rule, regiments were created on the basis of caste, community and regions (such as of Sikhs, Gurkhas, Pathans, etc) to prevent the emergence of nationalist feeling among soldiers.
6. The policy towards Princely States also changed radically and the states were treated as the bulwark of the empire against future contingencies. The policy of annexation was now completely given up and the rulers of the Princely States were allowed to adopt heirs. But the status of the Princely States was reduced to subordinates and dependants.
7. The Revolt ended an era of territorial expansion, and started an era of economic exploitation.
8. The Revolt left terrible financial scars on the Indian soil. Hundreds of villages were destroyed. The public debt of India increased enormously.
9. The Revolt left a legacy of racial bitterness.
10. Though failed, the Revolt soon became a symbol of challenge to the mighty British empire in India and inspired the rise and growth of Indian national movement. The leaders of the Revolt became national heroes.
Nature and character of the Revolt
Ever since the publication of the book First War of Indian Independence First War of Indian Independence by the distinguished revolutionary V.D. Savarkar in London in 1909, the nature and character of the Revolt of 1857 has been hotly debated among the nationalists and historians. The debate centres round three main views: (1)that the revolt was a Sepoy Mutiny; (2) that it was a national struggle or War of Independence; and (3) that it was a mere manifestation of feudal unrest and reaction.
Sepoy Mutiny: British historians and certain observers of the 19th century saw it merely as a “Sepoy Mutiny”. Sir John Seeley described the event as a “wholly unpatriotic and selfish Sepoy Mutiny with no native leadership and no popular support”. This view is based on the assumption that the revolt was started by soldiers discontented with their service conditions. But the fact is that though the rebellion began as a military uprising, the leadership was in the hands of the civilians, and a very large number of civilians joined it. Besides, the military discontent was just one of the causes for the outbreak of the revolt.
War of Independence or Nationalist Struggle: The nationalists interpreted the revolt as a War of Independence. Savarkar described it as a “planned war of national independence.” S.N. Sen in his book Eighteen Fifty Seven agreed with this view and said: “what began as a fight for religion ended as a war of independence.” Opposing the view of Savarkar and Sen, R.C. Majumdar maintained that “the so-called First National War of Independence of 1857 is neither First, nor National, nor War of Independence”. For him, it was not a National Struggle because the larger part of the country and large sections of people took no part in it. It was not a War of Independence because various leaders of the revolt had no identity of purpose.
Feudal Unrest: Marxist historians have interpreted the revolt as a feudal insurrection because the leaders came from a feudal background and they did not have a modern vision about the future. But the revolt had two dimensions: mutiny and rebellion. It was the outcome of the coming together of two series of disturbances, military and civil, each provoked by independent grievances.
It would be difficult to precisely categorize the revolt. It was undoubtedly anti-imperialist and nationalist, because both Hindus and Muslims participated in equal measure and in close cooperation. Both the sepoys and the civilians wanted to overthrow foreign rule from India. But the concept of a common nationality and nationhood was, however, completely absent.
Web of Motives': By the 1970s historians had moved away from the debate about whether to name it a 'sepoy mutiny' or 'national revolt' etc. to examining the social roots of the revolt of 1857 through detailed area wise studies, most of which concentrated on the North Western Provinces and Awadh. Some studies have discounted the relation between the land revenue settlements and the revolt by arguing that
- talukdar participation in the revolt cannot be attributed to the Thomasonian settlement alone, because, for example, some enterprising talukdars who had made good their loss of land from commercial crops (cotton and indigo) showed no te'ndency to rebel.
- also the resentment against the bania (who profited from enforced sales) was rarely the sole or even primary cause of rural rebellion. In fact the principal elements of revolt in Saharanpur and Meerut came from castes and areas where the mahajan hold was lightest and the land revenue heaviest.
Participation of the talukdars in 1857 has been explained thus: the unexpected anarchy created by the revolt provided a convenient area in which pre-existent caste (Rajputs vs Jats and vice versdAhirs vs Chauhans and vice versa) and family antagonisms were fought afresh. In other words the institutional innovations of the Thamasonian era were but 'a single strand in the web of motive' that led some talukdars to remain loyal and others to rebel.
The Revolt of 1857 gave a severe blow to the British administration in India and made its reorganization inevitable. In fact, Indian society, the Indian government and the Indian economy all underwent significant changes in the decades following the revolt.
Growth of Administrative machinery
Home Government: The Act of 1858 transferred the governing power from the East India Company to the British crown. Under the rule of the Company, ultimate authority was wielded by the Directors of the Company and the Board of Control at London. After the transfer of power, it was exercised by a Secretary of State for India aided by a Council. The Secretary of State was a member of the British cabinet and was responsible to the British Parliament and not to the Indian people. The Council of the Secretary of State, known as the India Council, was his advisory board. Most of the members of the India Council were retired British-Indian officials.
Central Government: In India, the head of the government was the Governor-General who was also called the Viceroy or Crown’s personal representative. There was strict control of the British parliament over his powers. The Governor-General would have an executive council whose members acted as the heads of various departments as cabinet ministers. They also acted as his official advisers. Originally there were five members of this council. But by 1918 there were six ordinary members in addition to the commander-in-chief. The council discussed all important matters and decided them by a majority vote. But the Viceroy had the power to overrule the decisions of the Council.
The Indian Councils Act passed in 1861 enlarged the Viceroy’s Council for making laws and it came to be known as the Imperial Legislative Council. The Governor-General was authorized to enlarge his Council from six to twelve members; at least half of the additional six members could be non-officials of Indian or English origin. It had no real powers but was merely an advisory body. In fact, the Legislative Council had no control over the executive. Non-official Indian members were inducted into the Council to represent Indian views, because it was believed that the Revolt of 1857 would not have occurred if Indian views had been known to the rulers. But as the Indian members of the Council were thoroughly unrepresentative of the Indian people and as their number was very few, the Government of India remained thoroughly despotic as before 1858.
Provincial Government: The British had divided India into administrative units called provinces. Three of them – Bengal, Madras and Bombay – were called presidencies. The Presidencies were administered by a Governor and his Executive Council of three members appointed by the Crown. The Presidency governments possessed more powers than other provinces. The Provincial Governments were headed by Lieutenant Governors and Chief Commissioners appointed by the Governor-General.
By the Act of 1861 Legislative Councils similar to that of the centre were established in Bombay, Madras and Bengal and in other provinces. They too were mere advisory bodies and they too lacked powers of a democratic parliament.
Local Bodies: Local bodies included municipalities and district boards. Local services like education, health, sanitation and water supply were transferred to local bodies who would finance them through local taxes. But they were not true local self-governments in that they consisted of nominated members and were presided over by District Magistrates. In fact, the idea behind the introduction of local bodies was that associating Indians with the administration would prevent their becoming politically disaffected.
Public Services: All positions of power and responsibility in the administration were occupied by the members of the Indian Civil Service who were recruited through an annual examination held in London. Only a few Indians could pass the examination. So they were largely excluded from higher grades of administration.
Administrative Reforms under the Crown
LORD LYTTON (1876-80)
LORD LYTTON was a nominee of the conservative govt. of Benjamin Disraeli in Britain. A diplomat by profession & a reputed literary figure, Lytton took over the charge from Lord North Brooke at Calcutta. Actually he has no experience of administration and was not familiar with Indian affairs.
Lytton and Free Trade
Demand for free trade was very strong in England. The new cotton mills emerging in India during that time, posed a threat to the free trade of the British. Lancashire Cotton manufactures’ jealousy towards new cotton mills of Bombay prompted them to voice against import duties on cotton goods levied in India-They prompted conservative govt. to move a resolution in House of Commons to repeal the cotton duties. Lord Salisbury, the Secretary of State for India forwarded it to Indian Govt. Soon Lytton abolished import duties for about 29 articles (including cotton) without considering concern of India Council.
Financial Reforms
The policy of financial decentralization initiated during the period of Lord Mayo was continued. Under Lord Lytton Provincial governments were given the control of expenditure upon all ordinary provincial services including land revenue, excise, stamps, law and justice, general admn. etc. For the discharge of the newly transferred services, the provincial governors were not given any increase in their fixed grants but handed over some specified sources of revenue from the respective provinces. it was provided that any surplus above the estimated income was to be shared equally with the Central Government.
Sir John Strachey (finance member of Viceroy’s Council) took steps to equalize rates of salt duties in British provinces. He also negotiated with Indian princes to surrender their rights of manufacture of salt and acquired monopolies to manufacture salt in return for compensation. Thus he brought an end to inter-state salt smuggling and it began to yield more revenue to the government.
Famine Commission
A severe famine ravaged India during 1876-78 when Lord Lytton used to be the viceroy of India. The areas worst affected were Bombay, madras, Mysore, Hyderabad and some parts of Central India and Punjab. Many villages were deserted and a large tract of area went out of cultivation. About 58 million people were affected by the famine. According to R.C. Dutt 5 million people perished in a single year. The government famine machinery was inadequate and ineffective. In 1878 a Famine Commission was appointed under Sir Richard Strachey to enquire in to the whole question of Famines and grant of famine relief. Its recommendations became the basis of Famine Code of 1883. It made it clear that the Relief is the duty of govt. It recommended that the Govt. must provide work for able bodied, distribution of food/money to the aged, advance preparation for starting relief work, suspension and remission of land revenue and rents. It further advised that the cost of famine relief should be borne by the provincial govts. and they can seek central assistance if necessary. The govt. must set up a famine relief and immune fund by setting apart 15 million rupees per year. The commission also recommended the construction of railway and the irrigation works. In this way the Indian government under Lord Lytton laid the subsequent famine policy.
Royal Titles Act 1876
The British parliament passed the Royal Titles Act investing queen Victoria with the title of Kaiser-I-hind or the Queen Empress of India. English liberals ridiculed it but it was coldly received by Indians. Lytton hold a Durbar at Delhi on 1st January 1877 to announce to the people and princes of India the assumption of the Title, when major parts of India was under a severe famine. He spent millions for it when millions were dying of hunger and starvation. This Act reduced the Indian Chiefs from the position of allies to that of feudatories and the status of Indians to that of citizens of British Empire. It prompted Educated Indians to organize for obtaining rightful place in the Empire.
Vernacular Press Act, 1878
Unpopular policies of Lord Lytton drove discontent among the masses. Bombay Presidency witnessed agrarian riots, gang robberies and attack on moneylenders. The vernacular press criticized the British policies. Alarmed by these writings lord Lytton resorted to repressive policies towards press. In March 1878 an act for better control of publications in oriental languages was introduced. It empowered a Magistrate to call upon the printer and publisher of any vernacular press to enter in to a bond undertaking not to publish anything likely to excite feeling of dissatisfaction against the govt. or antipathy between persons of different race, caste/ religion among subjects. The magistrate could also demand security and forfeit it, if it violated the regulations. If these offences repeated the equipment was liable to be seized. Appeal against Magistrate’s Action was not permitted. S.N Banarjee denoted the bill as a “bolt from the blue”. This gagging Act succeeded in making the vernacular press submissive.
The Arms Act 1978
Indian Arms Act was the important event of the repressive administrative policy of Lord Lytton. The Arms Act XI of 1878 declared that the keeping, bearing and trafficking in arms without the license would be considered as a criminal offence. The penalties for the contravention of Act were imprisonment for a term, which may extend to three years with fine. However in case of concealment or an attempt of concealments of a term resulted into the imprisonment of seven years with an amount of fine. The worst feature of the Arms Act passed by Lord Lytton was the racial discrimination introduced with the law. Europeans, Anglo-Indians and some categories of the government officials were however exempted from the operational jurisdiction of this act.
Statutory Civil Service
In order to satisfy the nationalist demand Lord Lytton proposed for the plan of the Statutory Civil Service in 1878-79. According to the rules laid by the statutory Civil Services the Government of India could employ some aristocratic Indians to the statutory Civil Service on the recommendations of the provincial governments and subject to the confirmation of the secretary of State. The Act of 1879, also proposed that the number of such appointments would not exceed one sixth of the total appointments made to the covenanted services. The Statutory Civil Service did not have the same status and salary like the covenanted services. The statutory Civil Service did not prove popular among the Indian subjects and had to be abolished eight years later.
Second Afgan War
The worst event of the reign of Lord Lytton was the second Afghan War. Lytton provoked a senseless war with the Afghans with a view to establish a "scientific frontier" towards the northwest. However the adventure proved failure, while the new govt had squeezed millions from the poor.
Estimate
Lytton was undoubtedly a man of ideas. The idea of forming a separate north-western Frontiers province under the direct supervision of the Central Government and the privy council of the Indian princes were the brainchild of Lytton. However the reign of Lytton in India was a period of repression and oppression. Thus Lytton was judged as a failure ruler in India. His reactionary policies were greatly responsible for the beginning of National Movement in India.
Ripon and his Reforms (1880-84)
lord Ripon became the Viceroy of India as a representative of the liberal govt. of Britain under William Gladstone. A true liberal of the Gladstonian era, Ripon’s whose political out look was very antithesis to his immediate predecessor –Lord Lytton. He was inspired with a sense of mission and duty toward India. His major measures bear the stamp of sympathy and humanitarianism. He took some steps towards liberalizing administration in India. His sincerity of purpose is clear from his first public announcement in Calcutta when he said “judge me by my acts and not by my words”. He brought an end to the second Afghan war and repealed the Vernacular Press Act.
Important reforms
Ø Local self govt.
Ø liberal attitude towards Press
Ø Educational reforms
Ø Factory Act
Ø Financial Decentralization
Ø Ilbert Bill
1. Local Self Government: -
Ripon tried to introduce the real element of local self govt. in India. His resolution on local self govt. (1882) was a land mark. The development of local self govt. bodies was advocated as an instrument of political and popular education. In 1883 and 1884, a series of acts inspired by Ripon’s resolution on local self govt. were passed. They set up rural boards at the District and Taluk level and in some Provinces Panchayats representing group of Villages. The members of the district and Taluk boards were elected. There was also a nominated element. The Taluk board was presided over by a nominated Chairman. The district board was presided over by the Collector. These boards dealt with roads, education, medical relief etc. But bureaucracy was not ready to be liberal as Ripon. They controlled and put restrictions. As a result these reforms were not introduced in many provinces, where old system continued. Any way Ripon’s resolutions sawed the seeds of local self govt. in India and he is often called as “the father of local self govt. in India”.
2. Liberal Attitude towards the Press: -
In 1882, Ripon repealed ‘Gagging Act’ of Canning and Vernacular Press Act of Lord Lytton. Under the stress of the revolt of 1857, Lord Canning introduced a system of licensing of all printing presses. This measure came to be called the ‘Gagging act’.
Lytton’s Act discriminated against the Vernacular Press and gave power to the magistrate to demand bonds for good behavior from printers and publishers of Vernacular Press. The repeal of these two laws left the Press practically free.
3. Educational Reforms:-
In 1882 Ripon appointed Hunter Commission to Review the Progress of education in India and suggest measures for further growth. Commission recommended for the expansion and improvement of primary education, withdrawal of state from direct support and management of higher educational institutions. Ordinary and special grants were to be made to the colleges. All elementary schools were to be inspected and supervised by the educational officers of the govt. It also recommended for the spread of female education and education among the Muslims. Ripon’s govt. accepted the recommendations of the commissions were carried out. It resulted in unprecedented growth in higher education in British India.
4. Factory Legislation: -
Ripon took keen interest in the welfare of the people. In 1881 he passed the First Factory act, to regulate and improve the conditions of labour in Indian Factories. Children between the age of 17 and 12 were not to work for more than 9 hours a day. It prohibited employment of children less than 7 years. It recommended that the dangerous machinery was to be fenced and inspectors were to be appointed for the purpose of injection. Ripon’s factory act opened a new chapter in the industrial history of India.
5. Financial Decentralization:-
Ripon's govt. continued the process of financial decentralization begun by Lord Mayo. Ripon's measures were aimed at increasing the financial responsibilities of the provinces. The sources of revenue were divided in to three classes, viz., imperial, provincial and divided.
1) Imperial heads: -
Revenues from customs, posts and telegraphs, railways, opium, salt. Mint, military receipts, land revenue etc., went wholly to the central govt. and the central expenditure was to be met out of this income.
2) Provincial heads: -
Income from subjects of local nature like jails, medical services, printing, roads, general administration etc. was to go entirely to provincial govts. Above all central govt. provided a grand of fixed percent of land revenue to the provinces to meat their requirements.
3) Divided Heads:-
Income from excise, stamps, forests, registration etc., was divided in equal proportion among the central and provincial govts.
The financial settlement was to be received in every 5 years. The Comptroller and Auditor General was to audit the central and provincial accounts and report to the Governor General. According to Bipan Chandra Ripon's financial measures were 'to keep down expenditure an increase income'. These patterns of financial decentralization continued untill the end of British rule.
6.Ilbert Bill
It created an everlasting image to Ripon among Indians. Though the Indians were capable to occupy the place of District and Session Judge, Indian judges were not allowed to try those cases in which European subjects were involved. with the aim of providing equal opportunities and putting an end to the judicial disqualification based on racial distinction, Ripon asked C.P.Ilbert, law member of Viceroy's Council to prepare a Bill enabling an Indian Judge to try a European. There was great opposition to the Bill among the Europeans in India. They began to boycott Ripon from social gatherings, abused and even conspired to kidnap. Finally the bill had to be amended. It provided the European accused with a right to claim a trial by jury of 12 members of whom at least seven were to be Europeans or Americans.
Ilbert bill controversy endeared Ripon to the Indians and it showed them how to agitate against govt. policies and measures. The amendment virtually defeated Ripon's aims; he resigned before his term of Viceroyality was over and returned to England in1884.
Estimate
Ripon's period of 4 years is noted for his liberal attitude towards the Indian aspirations. His reform in the local administration with an aim to provide political and popular education to Indians, liberal attitude towards press, Ilbert Bill and his resignation shows clearly the depth of his pro-Indian feeling. Florence Nightingale labeled Ripon as 'the savior of India'. Madan Mohan Malavya said:" Ripon was the greatest and most beloved Viceroy whom India has known".
Economic Impact of British Rule
India became a classic colony of Britain by the end of the 19thC. The British rule in India was based on colonial ideology and imperial interest. It created lasting impact on society and economy.
THE ECONOMIC IMPACT OF BRITISH RULE
The transformation of Indian economy in to colonial economy was the most important result of British rule in India. Thus the Indian economy was subjected to the economic requirement of industrial Britain, production became market oriented, India’s economic development was impeded, Indian economy was integrated with the world capitalist system and whole India was transformed in to a single economic unit.
1. Indo-British trade
The British rule in India facilitated internal and foreign trade. While the abolition of transit duties, peace and order created by British rule, means of transport and communication and introduction of railway favoured the growth of internal trade, the opening of Suez Canal in 1869 gave a great impetus for indo-British trade. Earlier British India exported finished goods. But after the industrial revolution in Britain India exported raw materials like jute, cotton, wheat, oil seeds etc. and imported finished goods. The British imports to India manufactured new taste and habits and proved to be destructive to Indian traditional industries. The excess of imports over exports was not favourable to India. Thus the growth of foreign trade was positive to British imperial interests.
2. De-industrialisation
Destruction of Indian Traditional Rural and Urban Industries
For centuries India had a well developed, high quality handicraft industry like silk and cotton textiles that catered the needs of domestic aristocratic sections and the people of other continents. The industrial policy of imperial Britain caused the destruction of India’s traditional urban and rural village industries. British policy of annexation caused to loss the power and status of local magnets and their dependants, the principal customers of handicrafts. The adverse effect of British policy of customs and transit duties also caused havoc to artisans. As a result the Indian manufacturers failed to carry on internal trade effectively. Many artisanal groups especially weavers compelled to leave their hereditary profession. The industrial Revolution in Britain produced adverse effect. India became a “Free Trade” zone to British merchants and manufacturers and Indian markets were flooded with the cheap machine made goods from England. The Indian handicrafts industrial products especially cotton textiles could not stand in competition with the finished factory goods imported to India. Further the British introduced strict laws prohibiting the import of Indian cotton textiles to Britain. Above all the new Indian middle class’ thirst for British manufactured goods also created harm to Indian interest. Thus the influx of cheap machine made goods to Indian villages through railways and motor vehicles caused the decline of Indian rural artisanal industries. It also resulted in the decline of self sufficient village economy of India.
Scholars have characterised the ruination of Indian rural and urban industries during the colonial period as “deindustrialisation”. The destruction of traditional Indian industries was evidently connected with the growth of modem factory industry in England. The beginning of the process of destruction of Indian cottage industries laid further back, in the 18th century, when the products of Indian industries were still prized as valuable items of commerce. In that early stage of mercantile capitalism the source of profit of the East Indian Company was the difference between the cost prices in India and the sale prices in England of the Indian Industrial products like cotton and silk textiles. This price difference, i.e. the profit rates of the English East India Company, could be increased if the Indian cost price, at which East Indian Company purchased goods from the Indian artisans, could be lowered. So long as there was a competitive market in India, that is, so long as the English East Indian Company was competing in the Indian market, with other East India Companies of the French or the Dutch and with other merchants of Indian and Asian origin, the Indian artisans were in a good bargaining position. But in the last decades of the eighteenth century the British gradually eliminated most of their competitors, in particular the French and the Dutch. Moreover, by virtue of their military power and, in some regions (e.g. Bengal from 1765), their political and administrative position, the British established a hegemony which allowed them to become monopolists in the market.
The English Company's purchase together with the purchases of the servants of that company in their private capacity accounted for a very large portion of the marketed textiles of superior quality in Bengal. In the last three decades of the eighteenth century the British monopoly enabled the English traders to reduce the prices paid to the native artisans in this country and thus to reap high profits from sale in the European market. This excessive exploitation of Indian artisans weakened the very basis of our handicraft industries by reducing the artisan to a low level of income. It also destroyed the possibility of accumulation of resources to invest in the industry and to improve its technology. The Industrial Revolution wiped out the market for India's artisans in Europe, because the economies of large scale production in the new English factories made it impossible for artisanal products to compete with factory products. By the beginning of the 19th century the staple industrial exports, cotton textiles, began to decline and soon they ceased to be exported. Some other items, e.g. indigo and raw silk, continued to be exported - though from 1813 it was no longer the East India Company but private trade which became the agency for exports. Not only was the export market of the Indian artisans taken away by the foreign factories, but the home market began to be invaded by imported factory products. The decay of handicraft industries were not accompanied by a simultaneous growth of modern industries in India. This is the process which has been called de-industrialisation since it is the reverse of the process of industrialisation. According to Sumit Sarkar “the artisans were made to shoulder the burden of progress being achieved in a country 6000 miles away”. R.P.Dutt opines that “India was transformed from being a country of combined agriculture and manufactures into an agricultural colony of British manufacturing Capitalism”. It increased pressure on Agriculture. When modern industries began many of the ruined artisans migrated to towns and became industrial wage labourers.
There is a debate that has taken place on the question of deindustrialisation in India in course of the 19th century. Romesh C. Dutt and Madan Mohan Malviya (in his note of dissent to the Indian Industrial Commission) used the statistics of import to prove their point. They showed, for example, that import of Manchester cloth increased in value from 96 lakh sterling in 1860 to 27 crore sterling in 1900. Some recent authors, particularly Morris David Moms, argue that this evidence is not decisive; they argue that under Pax Britanica the population increased; the per capita income increased, the sale of cloth increased due to change in consumption habits, and thus it was possible for Indians to buy more foreign cloth, leaving the market for indigenous artisans unaffected. In short, Morris's argument is that the market expanded so that it was possible to accommodate both Manchester and Indian Weaver's produce. Manchester cloth, Morris maintained, did not displace indigenous weaver's cloth. This view of Morris is unacceptable because he does not produce any evidence to prove increase in population and per capita income during the 19th century. There is plenty of evidence put forward by recent economic historians like Sarda Raju for Madras, N.K. Sinha for Bengal, A.V. Raman Rao for Andhra, R.D. Choksey for Maharashtra and A.K. Bagchi for Bihar, etc. which lends support to the deindustrialisation thesis. The early nationalist economists did not have access to the sources and methods used by these recent economic historians but their conclusion regarding de-industrialisation is confirmed by the findings of later researches. In the middle Gangetic region, according to Bagchi's estimate, the industrial decline can be measured with some accuracy: the weight of industry in the livelihood pattern of the people was reduced by half from 1809-13 to the census year 1901.
That the process of de-industrialisation continued up to the last decade of the 19th century is established beyond question. Did the growth of new industrial activities in the last decade of the 19th century restore the balance? Deniel Thorner has put forward the controversial thesis that the census statistics available from 1881 do not suggest that de-industrialisation was in progress from 1881 to 1931. At first sight, the census figures indicate that the male work-force in agriculture increased from 65% in 1881 to 72% in 1931, while the proportion in industry declined from 16% in 1881 to 9% in 1931. But Thorner believes that this categorisation was erroneous and one should lump together agricultural work force with another category, general Labour's and likewise aggregate industrial work-force with 'Trade'. If that is done, the picture looks different. The increase in the compounded categories appears to be far less in the primary sector (only about 2% growth between 1881 and 1931). Similarly the decline in industry and trade put together is also much less (only about 3% decline in 1881-1931). Further, Thorner dismisses the data on female labour force on the ground that the data collected were inaccurate in the opinion of census officials. In this way Thorner arrives at the conclusion that the 1881-1931 census does not show any evidence of substantial de-industrialisation.
In criticism of Thorner, one obvious point is that the process of de-industrialisation had already done the damage well before the census operations began. The first reliable all India census was that of 1881. This much Thorner is himself willing to concede. Secondly, he is perhaps wrong in dismissing the figures regarding employment of women. These figures for 1881-1931 show an increase in employment in Agriculture by 13% and a decline in Industrial employment by 9%. In the Indian social context the employment of women is quite significant, and it is likely that in case of decline in artisan's business the women of the household gave up industrial work (to take up household chores or agricultural labour) earlier than men folk in the artisan families. Above all, there is the question: how reliable is the sectoral distribution of work-force as an index of industrialisation or its reverse? The crucial index is the per capita Productivity and the value of what is produced as a proportion of national produce, i.e. ratio to national income. J. Krishnamurthy has, on this ground cast doubts upon the use of demographic data, as in Thorner's argument, to answer the question, was there de-industrialisation?
Lastly, we may note that there was also an important trend of imperialist apologists which frankly admitted the de-industrialisation of India as a fact but argued that it was good for both India and Britain that the colony specialised in the production of agricultural goods. As late as 1911 Lord John Meynard Keynes wrote that industrialising India was neither possible nor desirable. India could, infact, attain greater prosperity by exchanging agricultural products for all the industrial goods that may be needed through imports from the West. This view goes back to the classical theory of comparative advantage and international division of labour, assigning to colonies like India the role of the agricultural farm of the industrialised imperial country. One of the real achievements of the nationalist economists was to defeat this view and to establish in the political agenda of the freedom struggle the economic programme of India's industrialisation.
