History Of Modern India Part 4

To achieve his political aims Wellesley relied on three methods: the system of Subsidiary Alliances, outright wars, and a.s.sumption of the territories of previously' subordinated rulers. While the practice of helping an Indian ruler with a paid British force was quite old, it was given a definite shape by Wellesley who used it to subordinate the Indian States to the paramount authority of the Company. Under his Subsidiary Alliance system, the ruler of the allying Indian State was compelled to accept the permanent stationing of a British force within his territory and to pay a subsidy for its maintenance. All this was done allegedly for his protection but was, in fact, a form through which the Indian ruler paid tribute to the Company, Sometimes the ruler ceded part of his territory instead of paying annual subsidy. The Subsidiary Treaty also usually provided that the Indian ruler would agree to the posting at his court of a British Resident, that he would not employ any European in his service without the approval of the British, and that he would sot negotiate with any other Indian ruler without consulting the Governor-General. In return the British undertook to defend the ruler from his enemies. They also promised non-interference in the internal affairs of the allied state, but this was a promise they seldom kept.

In reality, by signing a Subsidiary Alliance, an Indian state virtually signed away its independence. It lost the right of self-defence, of maintaining diplomatic relations, of employing foreign experts, and of settling its disputes with its neighbours. In fact, the Indian ruler lost all vestiges of sovereignty in external matters and became increasingly subservient to the British Resident who interfered in the day to day administration of the state. In addition, the system tended to bring about the internal decay of the protected state. The cost of the subsidiary force provided by the British was very high and, in fact, much beyond the paying capacity of the state. The payment of the arbitrarily fixed and artificially bloated subsidy invariably disrupted the economy of the state and impoverished its people. The system of Subsidiary Alliances also led to the disbandment of the armies of the protected states. Lakhs of soldiers and officers were deprived of their hereditary livelihood, spreading misery and degradation in the country. Many of them joined the roaming bands of Pindarees which

were to ravage the whole of Tndia during the first two decades of the 19th century. Moreover, the rulers of tlie protected states tended to neglect the interests of their people and to oppress them as they no longer feared them. They had no incentive to be good rulers as they were fully pro- tected by the British from domestic and foreign enemies.

The Subsidiary Alliance system was, on the other hand, extremely advantageous to the British. They c6uld now maintain a large army at the cost of the Indian states. They were enabled to fight Wars far away from their own territories, since any war would occur In the territories either of the British ally or of the British enemy. They controlled the defence and foreign relations of the protected ally, and had a powerM force stationed at the very heart of his lands, and could, therefore, at a time of their choosing, overthrow him and annex his territories by declaring him to be inefficient.. As far as the British were concerned, the system of Subsidiary Alliances was* in the words of a British writer, "a system of fattening allies as we fatten oxen, till they were worthy of being devoured."

Lord Wellesley signed his first Subsidiary Treaty with the Nizam of Hyderabad in 1798. The Nizam was to dismiss his French-trained troops and to maintain a subsidiary force of six battalions at a cost of * 24Ij7I0 per year In return, the British guaranteed his state against Maratha encroachments. By another treaty in 1800,the subsidiary force was increased and, in lieu of cash payment, the Nizam ceded part of his territories to the Company, The Nawab of Avadh was forced to sign a Subsidiary Treaty in 1801. In return for a larger subsidiary force, the Nawab was made to surrender to the British nearly half of his kingdom consisting of Rohilkhand and the territory lying Phtdaree Fort in the Neighbourhood of Varanasi Courtesy; National Archives of India, Ne*'Delhi

between the Ganga and the Jamuna. Moreover, the Nawab was no longer lo be independent, even within the part of Avadh left with him. He must accept any advice. or order from the British authorities regarding the internal administration of his state. His police was to be reorganised under the control and direction of British officers. His own army was virtually disbanded and the British had the right to station their troops in any part of his state.

Wellesley dealt with Mysore, Carnatic, Tanjore, and Surat even more sternly. Tipu of Mysore would, of course, never agree to a Subsidiary Treaty. On the contrary, he had never reconciled himself to the loss of half of his territory in 1792. He worked incessantly to strengthen his forces for the inevitable struggle with the British He entered into negotiations for an alliance with Revolutionary France. He sent missions 'to Afghanistan, Arabia and Turkey to forge an anti-British alliance.

Lord Wellesley was no less determined to bring Tipu to heel and to prevent any possibility of the French re-entering India. The British army attacked and defeated Tipu in a brief but fierce war m 1799, before French help could reach him. Tipu still refused to beg for peace on humiliating terms. He proudly declared that it was "better to die like a soldier, than to live a miserable dependent on the infidels, in the list of their pensioned, rajas and nabobs." He met a hero.s end on 4 May 1799 while defending his capital Seringapatam. His army remained loyal to him to the very end. The taking over of the capital was described by Arthur Wellesley, the future Duke of Wellington, in the following words; Nothing therefore can have exceeded what was done on the night of the 4th. Scarcely a house in the town was left unplundered, and I understand that in camp jewels of the greatest value, bars of gold, etc., etc., have been offered for sale in the bazars of the army fey our soldiers?, sepoys, and followers... They (the people) are returning to their houses and beginning again to follow their occupations. , but the properly of every one is gone.

Nearly half of Tipu!s dominions were divided between the British and their ally, the Nizam- The, reduced kingdom of Mysore was restored to the decendants pf the original rajas from whom Haidar Ali had seized

power. A special treaty of Subsidiary Alliance was imposed on. the new Raja by which the Governor-General was authorised to take over the administration of the state in case of necessity. Mysore was, in fact, made a complete dependency of the Company. An important result of the Fourth Anglo-Mysore War was the complete elimination of the French threat to British Supremacy in India.

In 1801, Lord Wellesley forced a new treaty upon the puppet Nawab of Carnatic compelling him to cede his,kingdom to the Company in return for a handsome pension. . The Madras Presidency as it existed til1,1947 was now oreated, by attaching the Carnatic to territories seized from Mysore, including the Malabar. Similarly, the territories of the rulers of Tanjore and Sutat were taken over and their rulers pensioned off.

The Marathas were the only major Indian power left .outside the sphere of British control. Wellesley now turned his attention towards them and began aggressive interference in their internal affairs.

The Maratbft Empire at this time consisted of a confederacy af five big ichiefs, nftmely, the Peshwa at Poona, the Gaekwad at Barodat the Sindhia at Gwalior, the Holkar at Indore, and the Bhonsle at Nagpur, the Peshwa being the. nominal head of the confederacy. Unfortunately for the Marathas, they lost nearly all of their wise and experienced leaders towards the close of the 18th century. Mahadji Sindhia, Tukoji Holkar, Ahilya Bai Holkar, Peshwa Madhav Rao I[, and Nana Phadnis, the man who had kept tbe Maratha confederacy together for the last 30 years, all were dead by the year 1800. What was worse, the Maratha chiefs were engaged in bitter fratricidal strife, blind to the real daoger from the rapidly advancing foreigner. Yeshwant Rao Holkar on one side and Dan la t Rao Sindhia and Peshwa Baji Rao II on the other wer^ locked in mortal combat, Wellesley had repeatedly offered a subsidiary alliance to the Peshwa and The Storming of Sermgapatam Courtesy. Archaeological Survey of India, New Delhi

Sindhia. But the far-sighted Nana Phadnis had refused to fall into the trap. However, when on 25 October 1802, the day of the great festival of Diwali, Holkar defeated the combined armies of the Peshwa and Sindhia, the cowardly Peshwa Baji Rao II rushed into the arms of the English and on the fateful last day of 1802 signed the Subsidiary Treaty at Ba.s.sein. The British had finally realised their ambition. Lord Wellesley wrote on 24 December 1802: This crisis of affairs appeared to me to afford the most favourable opportunity for the complete establishment of the interests of the British pow er in the Maratha Empire, without the hazard ofinvolvmg us in a contest with any party.

The victory had been a little too easy and Wellesley was wrong in one respect: the proud Maratha chiefs would not surrender their great tradition of independence without a struggle. But even in this moment of their peril they would not unite against their common enemy. When Sindhia and Bhonsle fought the British, Holkar stood on the side-lines and Gaekwad gave help to the British. When Holkar took up arms, Bhonsle and Sindhia nursed their wounds. Moreover, the Maratha chiefs underestimated the enormously increased strength of the enemy and went into battle without adequate- preparation.

In the South, the British armies led by Arthur Wellesley defeated the combined armies of Sindhia and Bhonsle at a.s.saye in September 1803 and at Argaon in November. In the North, Lord Lake routed Sindhia.s army at Laswari on the first of November and occupied Aligarh, Delhi and Agra. Once again the blind Emperor of India became a pensioner of the Company. The Maratha allies had to sue for peace, Both became subsidiary allies of the Company. They ceded part of their territories to the British, admitted British Residents to their Courts and promised not to employ any Europeans without British approval. The British gained complete control over the Orissa coast and the territories between the Ganga and the Jamuna. The Peshwa became a disgruntled puppet in their hands, Wellesley now turned his attention towards Holkar, but Yeshwant Rao Holkar proved more than a match for the British. Using traditional Maratha tactics of mobile warfare and in alliance with the Jats, he fought British armies to a standstill, Holkar.s ally, the Raja of Bharatpur, inflicted heavy losses on Lake who unsuccessfully attempted to storm his fort. Moreover, overcoming his age-old antagonism to the Holkar family, Sindhia began to think of joining hands with Holkar. On the other hand, the shareholders of the East India Company discovered that the policy of expansion through war was proving costly and was reducing their profits. The Company.s debt had increased .from 17 million in 1797 to 31 million in 1806. Moreover, Britain.s finances were getting exhausted at a time when Napoleon was once again becoming a major threat in Europe. British statesmen and the Directors of the Company felt that time had come to check further expansion, to put an end to ruinous expenditure, and to digest and consolidate Britain.s recent gains in India. Wellesley was therefore recalled from India and the Company made peace with Holkar in January 1806 by the Treaty of Rajghat giving back to the latter the greater part of his territories.

Wellesley.s expansionist policy had been checked near the end. Ml the same it had resulted in the East India Company becoming the pa 'a- mount power in India. A young officer in the Company.s judicial servicj, Henry Roberclaw, could write about 1805: An Englishman in India is proud and tenacious, he feels himself & eojlqucror amongst a vanquished people and looks down with some degree of superiority on all below him.

Expansion Under Lord Hastings The Second Angio-Maratha War had shattered the power of the Maratha chiefs but not their spirit. The loss of their freedom rankled in llieir hearts. They made a desperate last attempt to regain their independence and old prestige in 1817. The lead in organising a united front of the Maratha chiefs was taken by the Peshwa who was smarting under the rigid control exercised by the British Resident. However, once again the Marathas failed to evolve a concerted and well-thought out plan of action. The Peshwa attacked the British Residency at Poona in November 1817. Appa Sahib of Nagpur attacked the Residency at Nagpur, and Madhav Rao Holkar made preparations for war.

The Governor-General, Lord Hastings, struck back with characteristic vigour. He compelled Sindhia to accept British suzerainty, and defeated the armies of the Peshwa, Bhonsle and Holkar. The Peshwa was dethroned and pensioned off at Bithur near Kanpur. His territories were annexed and the enlarged Presidency of Bombay brought into existence. Holkar and Bhonsle accepted subsidiary forces. All the Maratha chiefs had to cede to the Company large tracts of their territories. To satisfy Maratha pride, the small Kingdom of Satara was founded out of the Peshwa.s lands and giver, to the descendant of Chatrapati Shivaji who ruled it as a complete dependent of the British. Like other rulers of Indian

Based upon Survey of India map with the permission of (he Surveyor General of India, The territorial waters of India extend into the sea to fi distance oftwelvo nautical miles measured from the appropriate bnsc line. Government of India Copyright 1982

states, the Maratha chiefs too existed from now on at the mercy of the British power.

The Rajputana states had been dominated for several decades by Sindhia and Holkar. After the downfall of the Marathas, they lacked the energy to rea.s.sert their independence and readily accepted British supremacy.

* Thus, by 1818, the entire Indian sub-continent excepting the Punjab and Sindh had been brought under British control. Part of it was ruled directly by the British and the rest by a host of Indian rulers over whem the British exercised paramount power. These states had virtually no armed forces of their own, nor did they have any independent foreign relations. They paid heavily for the British forces stationed in their territories to control them. They were autonomous in their internal affairs, but even in this respect they acknowledged British authority wielded through a Resident. They were on perpetual probation. On the other hand, the British were now free to reach out to the natural frontiers of India..

ii The Consolidation op British Power, 1815-57 The British completed the task of conquering the whole of India from 1818 to 1857. Sindb and the Punjab were conquered and Avadh, the Central Provinces and a large number oF other petty states were annexed.

The Conquest of Sindh The conquest of Sindh occurred as a result of the growing Anglc- Russian rivalry in Europe and Asia and the consequent British fears that Russia might attack India through Afghanistan or Persia. To counter Russia, the British Government decided to increase its influence in Afghanistan and Peisia. It further felt that this policy could be successfully pursued only if Sindh was brought under British control. The commercial possibilities of the river Sindh were an additional attraction.

The roads and rivers of Sindh were opened to British trade by a treaty in 1832. The chiefs of Sindh, known as Amirs, were made to sign a Subsidiary Treaty in 1839. And finally, in spite of previous a.s.surances that its territorial integrity would be respected, Sindh was annexed in 1843 after a brief campaign by Sir Charles Napier who had earlier written in his Diary: "We have no right to seize Sind, yet we shall do so, and a very advantageous, useful humane piece of rescahty it will be." He received seven lakhs of rupees as prize money for accomplishing the task.

Tbe Conquest of the Punjab The death of Maharaja Ranjit Singh in June 1.839 was followed by political instability and rapid changes of government in the Punjab. Selfish and corrupt leaders came to the front. Ultimately, power fell into the hands of the brave and patriotic but utterly indisciplined army. This led the British to look greedily across the Sutlej upon the land of the five rivets even though they had signed a treaty of perpetual friendship with Ranjit Singh in 1809. The British officials increasingly talked of having to wage a campaign in the Punjab.

The Punjab army let itself be provoked by the warlike actions of the British and their intrigues with the corrupt chiefs of the Punjab. In November 1844, Major Broadfoot, who was known to be hostile to the Sikhs, was appointed the British agent in Ludhiana. Broadfoot repeatedly indulged in hostile actions and gave provocations. The corrupt chiefs and officials found that the army would sooner or later deprive them of their power, position, and possessions. They conceived the idea of saving themselves by embroiling the army in a war with the British. In the autumn of 1845, news reached that boats designed to form bridges had been despatched from Bombay to Ferozepur on the Sutlej. Barracks for additional troops were built in the forward area and additional regiments began to be despatched to the frontier with the Punjab. The Punjab Army, now convinced that the British were determined to occupy the Punjab, took counter measures. When it heard in December that Lord Gough, the Commander-in-Chief, and Lord Haidinge, the Governor- General, were marching towards Ferozepur, it decided to strike. War between the two was thus declared on 13 December 1845. The danger from the foieigner immediately united the Hindus, the Muslims, and the Sikhs. The Punjab army fought heroically and with exemplary courage. But some of its leaders had already turned traitors. The Prime Minister, Raja Lai Singh, and the Commander-in-Chief, Misar Tej Singh, were secretly corresponding with the enemy. The Punjab Army was forced to concede defeat and to sign the humiliating Treaty of Lah.o.r.e on 8 March 1846. The British annexed the Jullundhar Doab and handed over Jammu and Kashmir to Raja Gulab Singh Dogra for a cash payment of five million rupees. The Punjab army was reduced to 20,000 infantry and 12,0 cavalry and a strong British force was stationed at Lah.o.r.e.

Later, on 16 December 1846, another treaty was signed giving the British Resident at Lah.o.r.e full authority over all matters in every department of the state. Moreover, the British were permitted to station their troops in any part of the state, From now on the British Resident became the real ruler of the Punjab which lost its independence and became a va.s.sal state.

But the aggressively imperialist sections of the British officialdom in India were still unsatisfied, for they wanted to impose direct British rule over the Punjab. Their opportunity came in 1848 when the freedom- loving Punjabis rose up in numerous local revolts. Two of the prominent le volts were led by Mulraj at Multan and Chatter Singh Attanwala near Lah.o.r.e. The Punjabis were once again decisively defeated. Lord Dalhousie seized this opportunity to annex the Punjab. Thus, the last independent state of India was absorbed in the British Empire of India.

Dalhousie and the Policy of Annexation (1848-1856) Lord Dalhousie came out to India as the Governor-General in 1848, He was from the beginning determined to extend direct British rule over as'large an area as possible. He had declared that "the extinction of all i native states of India is just a question of time". The ostensible reason for this policy was his belief that British administration was far superior to the corrupt and oppressive administration of the native rulers. However, the underlying motive of this policy was the expansion of British exports to India. Dalhousie, in common with other aggressive imperialists, believed that British exports to the native states of India were suffering because of the maladministration of these states by their Indian rulers, Moreover, they thought that their "Indian allies" had already served the purpose of facilitating British conquest of India and could now be got rid of profitably.

The chief instrument through which Lord Dalhousie implemented his policy of annexation was the Doctrine of Lapse. Under this Doctrine, when the ruler of a protected state died without a natural heir, his state was not to pa.s.s to an adopted heir as sanctioned by the age-old tradition of the country. Instead, it was to be annexed to the British dominions unless the adoption had been clearly approved earlier by the British authorities. Many states, including Sataia in 1848 and Nagpur and Jhansi in 1854, were annexed by applying this doctrine.

Dalhousie also refused to recognise the t.i.tles of many ex-rulers or to pay their pensions. Thus, the t.i.tles of the Nawabs of Carnatic and of Surat and the Raja of Tanjore were extinguished. Similarly, after the death of the ex-Peshwa Baji Rao II, who had been made the Raja of Bithnr, Dalhousie refused to extend his pay or pension to his adopted son, Nana Saheb.

Lord Dalhousie was keen on annexing the kingdom of Avadh. But the task presented certain difficulties. For one, the Nawabs of Avadh had been British allies since the Battle of Buxar, Moreover, they had been most obedient to the British over the years. The Nawab of Avadh had many heirs and could not therefore be covered by the Doctrine of Lapse. Some other pretext had to be found for depriving him of his dominions. Finally, Lord Dalhousie hit upon the idea of alleviating the plight of the people of Avadh. Nawab Wajid Ali Shah was accused of having misgoverned his state and of refusing to introduce reforms. His state was therefore annexed in 1856.

Undoubtedly, the degeneration of the administration of Avadh was a painful reality for its people. The Nawabs of Avadh, like other princes of the day, were selfish rulers absorbed ia self-indulgence who cared little for good administration or for the welfare of the people. But the responsibility for this state of affairs was in part that of the British who had at least since 1801 controlled and indirectly governed Avadh. In reality, it was the immense potential of Avadh as a market for Manchester goods which excited Dalhousie.s greed and aroused his philanthropic. feelings. And for similar reasons, to satisfy Britain.s growing demand for raw cotton, Dalhousie took away the cotton-producing province of Berav from the Nizam in 1853.

It needs to be clearly understood that the question of the maintenance or annexation of the natives states was of no great lelevance at this time. In fact, there were no Indian States in existence at that time, The protected native states were as much a part of the British Empiie as the territories ruled directly by the Company. If the form of British control over some of these states was changed, it was to suit British convenience. The interests of their people had httle to do with the change.

EXERCISES.

1. What were the causes of the war between the East India Company and Nawab Siraj-ud-Daulah?

2. How was the Battle of Pla.s.sey fought? What were its consequences?

3. Discuss the clash between Mir Qasim and the East India Company.

4. Trace the course of British wars with Mysore.

5. Discuss the underlying factors and forces of Wellesley.s policy of expansion. What were the basic methods he used to achieve his aims?

6. How did the British overpower the Maratha Confederacy9

7. Examine the policy of conquest and annexations followed by Dalhousie.

8. Write short notes on:

(a) Mir Jafar, (b) Clive, (c) The Dual Government of Bengal, (d) Annexation of Sindh, (e) Annexation of Avadh.

Government of India Copyright 1982 Based upon Survey of India map with the permission of the Surveyor General dr India.

The territorial waters oflndia extend into the sea to a. distance oftwelvt nautical miles measured from the appropriate base line.

CHAPTER V.

The Structure of the Government and the Economic Policies of the British Empire in India, 1757-1857 H.

AVING acquired the vast empire of India, the East India Company had to devise suitable methods of government to control and administer it. The administrative policy of the Company underwent frequeni changes during the long period between 1757 and 1857. However, it never lost sight of its main objects which were to increase the Company.s profits, to enhance the profitability of its Indian possessions to Britain, and to maintain and strengthen the British hold over India; all other purposes were subordinated to these aims. The administrative machinery of the Government of India was designed and developed to serve these ends. The main emphasis in this respect was placed on the maintenance oflaw and order so that trade with India and exploitation of its resources could be carried out without disturbance.

The Structure of Government When the officials of the East India Company acquired control over Bengal in 1765, they had little intention of making any innovations in its administration. They only desired to carry on their profitable trade and to collect taxes for remission to England, From 1765 to 1772, in the period of the Dual Government, Indian officials were allowed to function as before but under the over-all control of the British Governor and British officials. The Indian officials had responsibility but no power while the Company.s officials had power but no responsibility. Both sets of officials were venal and corrupt men. In 1772 the Company ended the Dual Government and undertook to administer Bengal directly through its own servants. But the evils inherent in the administration of a country by a purely commercial company soon came to the surface.

The East India Company was at this time a commercial body designed to trade with the East. Moreover, its higher authority was situated in England, many thousands of miles away from India. Yet, it had come to wield political power over millions of people. This anomalous state of affairs posed many problems for the British Government. What was to be the relation of the East India Company and its possessions to the government in Britain? How were the Company's authorities in Britain to control the great mult.i.tude of officials and soldiers stationed in far away India? How was a single centre of control to be provided in India over the far-flung British possessions in Bengal, Madras and Bombay.

The first of these problems was the most pressing as welt as the most important. It was, moreover, closely interwoven with party and parliamentary rivalries in Britain, the political ambitions of English statesmen, and the commercial greed of English merchants. The rich resources of Bengal had fallen into the hands of the Company whose proprietors immediately raised dividends to 10 per cent in 1767 and proposed in 1771 to raise the rate further to 12 per cent. The Company.s English servants took advantage of their position to make quick fortunes through illegal and unequal trade and forcible collection of bribes and gifts' from Indian chiefs and zamindars. Clive returned to England at the age of 34 with wealth and property yielding 40,000 a year.

The Company's high dividends and the fabulous wealth brought home by its officials excited the jealousy of the other sections of British society. Merchants kept out of the East by the monopoly of the Company, the growing cla.s.s of manufacturers and, in general, the rising forces of free enterprise in Britain wanted to share in the profitable Indian trade and the riches of India which the Company and its servants alone were enjoying. They, therefore, worked hard to destroy the Company.s trade monopoly and, in order to achieve this, they attacked the Company^ administration of Bengal. They also made the officials of the Company who returned from India their special target. These officials were given the derisive t.i.tle of nabobs' sod were ridiculed in the press and on the stage. They were boycotted by the aristocracy and were condemned as the exploiters and oppressors of the Indian people. Their two main targets were Clive and Warren Hastings. By condemning the nabobs., the opponents of the Compafiy hoped to make the Company unpopular and then to displace it.

Many ministers and other members of Parliament were keen to benefit from the acquisition of Bengal. They sought to win popular support by forcing the Company to pay tribute to the British Government so that Indian revenu.s could be used to reduce taxation or the public debt of England. In 767 the Parliament pa.s.sed an act obliging the Company to pay to the British treasury 400,000 per year. Many political thinken and statesmen of Britain wanted to control the activities of the Company and its officials because they were afraid that the powerful Company and its rich officials wouij completely debauch the English nation and its politics. The parliamentary politics of Britain during the latter half of the 18th century were corrupt in the extreme. The Company as well as its retired officials bought seats in the House of Commons for their agents.. Many English statesmen were worried that the Company and itB officials, backed by Indian plunder, might gam a preponderant influence in the Government of Britain. The Company and its vast empire in India had to be controlled or the Company as master of India would soon come to control British administration and be in a position to destroy the liberties of the British people.

The exclusive privileges of the Company were also attacked by the rising school of economists representing free-trade manufacturing capitalism. In his celebrated work, The Wealth of Nations, Adam Smith, the founder of Cla.s.sical economics, condemned the exclusive companies: Such exclusive companies, therefore, are nuisances in many respect; always more or less inconvenient to the countries in which they are established and destinedve to those which have the misfortune to fall under their government.

Thus, reorganisation of the relations between the British state and the Company.s authorities became necessary and the occasion arose when the Company had to ask the Government for a loan of 1,000,000. But, while the Company.s enemies were many and powerful, it was not without powerful friends in Parliament; moreover, the King, George III, was its patron. The Company, therefore, fought back. In the end, Parliament worked out a compromise by which the interests of the Company and of the various influential sections of British society were delicately balanced. It was decided that the British Government would control the basic policies of the Company.s Indian administration so that British rule in India waa carried on in the interests of the British upper cla.s.ses as a whole. At the same time the Company would retain its monopoly of Eastern trade and the valuable right of appointing its officials in India. The details of Indian administration were also left to the Directors of the Company.

The first important parliamentary act regarding the Company's affairs was the Regulating Act of 1773. This Act made changes in the const.i.tution of the Court of Directors of the Company and subjected their actions to the supervision of the British Government. The Directors were to lay before the Ministry all correspondence dealing with the civil and military affairs and the revenues of India. In India, the Government of Bengal was to be carried on by a Governor-General and his Council who were given the power to superintend and control the Bombay and Madras Presidencies in matters of war and peace.- The Act also provided for the establish-, mcnt of a Supreme Court of Justice at Calcutta to administer justioe to Europeans, their employees, and the citizens of Calcutta. The Regulating Act soon broke down in practice. It had not given the British Government effective and decisive control over the Company. In India it had placed the Governor-General at the mercy of his Council. Three of the Councillors could combine and outvote the Governor-General on any matter. In practice, Warren Hastings, the first Governor-General under the Act, and three of his Councillors quarrelled incessantly, often creating deadlocks in the administration. The Governor-General.s control over the other two Presidencies also proved inadequate in practice. Most important of all, the Act had failed to resolve the conflict between the Company and its opponents in England who were daily growing stronger and more vocal. Moreover, the Company remained extremely vulnerable to the attacks of its enemies as the administration of its Indian possessions continued to be corrupt, oppressive, and economically disastrous.

The defects of the Regelating Act and the exigencies of British politics necessitated the pa.s.sing in 1784 of another important act known as Pitt.s India Act. This Act gave the British Government supreme control over the Company.s affairs and its administration in India. It established six Commissioners for the affairs of India, popularly known as the Board of Control, including two Cabinet Ministers. The Board of Control was to guide and control the work of the Court of Directors and the Government of India. In important and urgent matters it had the power to send direct orders to India through a secret committee of Directors. The Act placed the Government of India in the hands of the Governor- General and a Council of three, so that if the Goverhor-General could get the support of even one member, he could have his way. The Act clearly subordinated the Bombay and Madras Presidencies to Bengal in all questions of war, diplomacy, and revenues. With this Act began a new phase of the British conquest of India. While the East India Company became the instrument of British national policy, India was to be made to serve the interests of all sections of the ruling cla.s.ses of Britain. The Company having saved its monopoly of the Indian and Chinese trade was satisfied. Its Directors retained the profitable right of appointing and dismissing its British officials in India. Moreover, the Government of India was to be carried out through their agency.

While Pitt's India Act laid down the general framework in which the Government of India was to be carried on till 1857, later enactments brought about several important changes which gradually diminished the powers and privileges of the Company. In 1786, the Governor-General was given the authority to overrule his Council ^n matters of importance affecting safety, peace, or the interests of the Empire in India.

By the Charter Act of 1813, the trade monopoly of the Company in India was ended and trade with India was thrown open to all British subjects, But trade in tea and trade with China were still exclusive to the Company. The Government and the revenues of India continued to be in the hands of the Company. The Company also continued to appoint its officials in India. The Charter Act of 1833 brought the Company.s monopoly of tea trade and trade with China to an end. At the same time the debts of the Company were taken over by the Government of India which was also to pay its shareholders a 10$ per cent dividend on their capital. The Government of India continued to be run by the Company under the strict control of the Board of Control.

Thus, the various acts of Parliament discussed above completely subordinated the Company and its Indian administration to the British Government. At the same time, it was recognised that day to day administration of India could not be run or even superintended from a distance of 6,000 miles. Supreme authority in India was, therefore, delegated to the Governor-General in Council. The Governor- General, having the authonty to overrule his Council in important questions, became in fact the real, effective ruler of India, functioning under the superintendence, control and direction of the British Government. It is to be noted that Indians were allowed no share in their own administration. The three seats of authority, as far as India was concerned, were the Court of Directors of the Company, the Board of Control representing the British Government, and the Governor-General. With none of the three was any Indian a.s.sociated even remotely or in any capacity.

The British created a new system of administration in India to serve their purposes. But before we discuss the salient features of this system, it would be better if we first examine the purposes which it was designed to serve, for the main function of the administrative system of a country is to accomplish the aims and objects of its rulers. The chief aim of the British was to enable them to exploit India economically to the maximum advantage of various British interests, ranging from the Company to the Lancashire manufacturers. At the same time India was to be made to bear the full cost of its own conquest as well as of the foreign rule. An examination of the economic policies of the British in India is, therefore, of prime importance.

British Economic Policies in India, 1757-1857 Commercial Policy: From 1600 to 1757 the East India Company.s role in India was that of a trading corporation which brought goods or precious metals into India and exchanged them for Indian goods like textiles, spices, etc., which it sold abroad. Its profits came primarily from the sale of'Indian goods abroad. Naturally, it tried constantly to open new markets for Indian goods in Britain and other countries. Thereby, it increased the export of Indian manufactures and thus encouraged their production. This is the reason why the Indian rulers tolerated and even encouraged the establishment of the Company.s factories in India.

Bat, from the very beginning, the British manufacturers were jealous of the popularity that Indian textiles enjoyed in Britain. All of a sudden dress fashions changed and light cotton textiles began to replace the coa.r.s.e woollens of the English. Defoe, the writer of the famous novel, Robinson Crusoe, complained that Indian cloth had "crept into our houses, our closets and bed chambers; curtains, cushions, chairs, and at last beds themselves were nothing but calicos or India stuffs" The British manufacturers put pressure on tlieii government to restrirt and prohibit the sale of Indian goods in England. By 1720 laws had been pa.s.sed forbidding the wear or use of punted or dyed cotton cloth. In 1760 a lady had to pay a fine of 200 for possessing an imported handkerchief! Moreover, heavy duties were imposed on the import of plain cloth. Other European countries, except Holland, also either prohibited the import of Indian cloth or imposed heavy import duties. In spite of these laws, however, Indian silk and cotton textiles still held their own in foreign markets, until the middle of the 18th century when the English textile industry began to develop on the basis of new and advanced technology.

After the Battle of Pla.s.sey in 1757 th pattern of the Company.s commercial relations with India underwent a qualitative change. Now the Company could use its political control over Bengal to push its Indian trade. Moreover, it utilised the Weaver-Working in a Pit Loom with Throw-S tint t.i.t Courtesy: National Archives of Mia New Delhi

revenues of Bengal to finance its export of Indian goods. The activity of the Company should have encouraged Indian manufacturers, but this was not so. The Company used its political power to dictate terms to the weavers of Bengal who were forced to sell their products at a cheaper and dictated price, even at a loss. Moreover, their labour was no longer free. Many of them were compelled to work for the Company for low wages and were forbidden to work for Indian merchants. The Company eliminated its rival traders, both Indian and foreign, and prevented them from offering higher wages or pn s to the Bengal handicraftsmen. The servants of the Company monoyolised the talc of raw cotton and made the Bengal weaver pay exorbitant prices for it. Thus, the weaver lost both ways, as buyer as well as seller. At the same time, Indian textiles had to pay heavy duties on entering England. The British Government was determined to protect its rising machine industry whose products could still not compete with the cheaper and better Indian goods. Even so Indian products held some of their ground. The real blow on Indian handicrafts fell after 1813 when they lost not only their foreign markets but, what was of much greater importance, their market in India itself.

The Industrial Revolution in Britain completely transformed Britain.s economy and its economic relations with India. During the second half of the 18th century and the first few decades of the 19th century, Britain underwent profound social and economic transformation, and Biitish industry developed and expanded rapidly on the basis of modern machines, the factory system, and capitalism. This development was aided by several factors.

British overseas trade had been expanding rapidly in the previous centuries. Britain had come to capture and monopolise many foreign markets by means of war and colonialism. These export markets enabled its export industries to expand production rapidly, utilizing the latest techniques in production and organisation. Africa, the West Indies, Latin America, Canada, Australia, China and above all India provided unlimited opportunities for export. This was particularly true of the cotton textile industry which served as the main vehicle of the Industrial Revolution in Britain. Britain had already evolved the colonial pattern of trade which helped the Industrial Revolution which in turn strengthened this pattern: the colonies and underdeveloped countries exported agricultural and mineral raw. materials to Britain while the latter sold them its manufactures.

Secondly, there was sufficient capital acc.u.mulated in the country for investment in new machinery and the factory system. Moreover, this capital was concentrated not in the hands of the feudal cla.s.s which would waste it in luxurious living but in the hands of merchants and industrialists who were keen to invest it in trade and industry. Here again the immense wealth drawn from Africa, Asia, the West Indies, and Latin America, including that drawn from India by the East India Company and its servants after the Battle of Pla.s.sey, played an important role in financing industrial expansion.

Thirdly, rapid increase in population met the need of the growing industries for more labour and cheaper labour. The population of Britain increased rapidly after 1740; it doubled in fifty years after 1780.