British Raj (rāj, lit. "reign" in Hindi[1]) was the British rule in the Indian subcontinent between 1858 and 1947.[2] The term can also refer to the period of dominion.[2][3] The region under British control, commonly called India in contemporary usage, included areas directly administered by the United Kingdom[4] (contemporaneously, "British India") as well as the princely states ruled by individual rulers under the paramountcy of the British Crown. After 1876, the resulting political union was officially called the Indian Empire and issued passports under that name. As India, it was a founding member of the League of Nations, and a member nation of the Summer Olympics in 1900, 1920, 1928, 1932, and 1936.
The system of governance was instituted in 1858, when the rule of the British East India Company was transferred to the Crown in the person of Queen Victoria[5] (and who, in 1876, was proclaimed Empress of India), and lasted until 1947, when British India was partitioned into two sovereign dominion states, the Union of India (later the Republic of India) and the Dominion of Pakistan (later the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, the eastern half of which, still later, became the People's Republic of Bangladesh). The eastern-most part of the Indian Empire became the separate colony of Burma in 1937, and this gained independence in 1948.
|
Contents
- 1 Geographical extent
- 2 British India and the Native States
- 3 The Governors-General and Viceroys
- 4 History 1858 to 1914
- 5 History 1914–1947
- 5.1 First World War, Lucknow Pact: 1914–1918
- 5.2 Satyagraha, Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms: 1917–1919
- 5.3 Noncooperation, Khilafat, Simon Commission, Jinnah's fourteen points: 1920s
- 5.4 Demand for complete independence, Salt March: 1929–1931
- 5.5 Government of India Act: 1931–1937
- 5.6 World War II, Muslim League's Lahore Resolution: 1938–1941
- 5.7 Army expansion
- 5.8 Cripps Mission, Quit India Resolution: 1942–1945
- 5.9 Elections, Cabinet Mission, Direct Action Day: 1946
- 5.10 The Plan for Partition: 1947
- 5.11 Violence, Partition, Independence: 1947
- 6 Ideological impact
- 7 Economic impact
- 8 Famines, epidemics, and public health
- 9 See also
- 10 Notes
- 11 Further reading
|
The British Raj is considered to have extended (in different forms) over all regions of present-day India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh. In addition, at various times, it included the Aden Colony (from 1858 to 1937), Lower Burma (from 1858 to 1937), Upper Burma (from 1886 to 1937), British Somaliland (briefly from 1884 to 1898), and Singapore (briefly from 1858 to 1867). Burma was separated from British India in 1937. The Trucial States of the Persian Gulf were treated as princely states of the Indian Empire until 1946.
Nearby countries with close ties to Britain which were not part of the Indian Empire include Ceylon (now Sri Lanka), administered as a separate Crown colony; and the Maldive Islands, which were a Protectorate with their own Sultans.
The British Indian Empire was made up of two types of territory: British India, directly administered by the British, and the Native States (or Princely States), administered by their own rulers, subject to subsidiary alliances which gave the British control of their external affairs. In its Interpretation Act 1889, the British Parliament adopted the following definitions:
(4.) The expression "British India" shall mean all territories and places within Her Majesty's dominions which are for the time being governed by Her Majesty through the Governor-General of India or through any governor or other officer subordinate to the Governor-General of India.
(5.) The expression "India" shall mean British India together with any territories of any native prince or chief under the suzerainty of Her Majesty exercised through the Governor-General of India, or through any governor or other officer subordinate to the Governor-General of India.[6]
In general the term "British India" had been used (and is still used) to also refer to the regions under the rule of the British East India Company in India from 1600 to 1858. The term has also been used to refer to the "British in India".[7]
Suzerainty over 175 princely states, some of the largest and most important, was exercised (in the name of the British Crown) by the central government of British India under the Viceroy; the remaining approximately 500 states were dependents of the provincial governments of British India under a Governor, Lieutenant-Governor, or Chief Commissioner (as the case might have been).[8] A clear distinction between "dominion" and "suzerainty" was supplied by the jurisdiction of the courts of law: the law of British India rested upon the laws passed by the British Parliament and the legislative powers those laws vested in the various governments of British India, both central and local; in contrast, the courts of the Princely States existed under the authority of the respective rulers of those states.[8]
At the turn of the 20th century, British India consisted of eight provinces that were administered either by a Governor or a Lieutenant-Governor. The following table lists their areas and populations (but does not include those of the dependent Native States) circa 1907:[9]
| Province of British India[9] |
Area |
Population in 1901 (in millions) |
Chief Administrative Officer |
| Burma |
170,000 square miles (440,000 km2) |
9 |
Lieutenant-Governor |
| Bengal (including present-day Bangladesh and the state of West Bengal, Bihar and Orissa) in India |
151,000 square miles (390,000 km2) |
75 |
Lieutenant-Governor |
| Madras |
142,000 square miles (370,000 km2) |
38 |
Governor-in-Council |
| Bombay (including present-day Sindh, Pakistan and parts of the state of Gujarat) in India |
123,000 square miles (320,000 km2) |
19 |
Governor-in-Council |
| United Provinces (present-day Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand) |
107,000 square miles (280,000 km2) |
48 |
Lieutenant-Governor |
| Central Provinces (including Berar) |
104,000 square miles (270,000 km2) |
13 |
Chief Commissioner |
| Punjab (including the present day Punjab province and Islamabad Capital Territory in Pakistan and the state of Punjab, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh and Chandigarh in India.) |
97,000 square miles (250,000 km2) |
20 |
Lieutenant-Governor |
| Assam |
49,000 square miles (130,000 km2) |
6 |
Chief Commissioner |
During the partition of Bengal (1905–1911), a new province, Assam and East Bengal was created as a Lieutenant-Governorship. In 1911, East Bengal was reunited with Bengal, and the new provinces in the east became: Assam, Bengal, Bihar and Orissa.[9]
In addition, there were a few minor provinces that were administered by a Chief Commissioner:[10]
| Minor Province |
Area |
Population (in thousands of inhabitants) |
Chief Administrative Officer |
| North West Frontier Province |
16,000 square miles (41,000 km2) |
2,125 |
Chief Commissioner |
| British Baluchistan (British and Administered territory) |
46,000 square miles (120,000 km2) |
308 |
British Political Agent in Baluchistan served as ex-officio Chief Commissioner |
| Coorg |
1,600 square miles (4,100 km2) |
181 |
British Resident in Mysore served as ex-officio Chief Commissioner |
| Ajmer-Merwara |
2,700 square miles (7,000 km2) |
477 |
British Political Agent in Rajputana served as ex-officio Chief Commissioner |
| Andaman and Nicobar Islands |
3,000 square miles (7,800 km2) |
25 |
Chief Commissioner |
Main article:
Princely stateA Princely State, also called a Native State or an Indian State, was a nominally sovereign entity with an indigenous Indian ruler who administered it internally, subject to a subsidiary alliance which always gave the British control of the state's external affairs and sometimes of other matters. The British Crown had suzerainty, but not sovereignty. There were 565 princely states when the British withdrew from the Indian subcontinent in August 1947.[11] The princely states did not form a part of British India (i.e. the presidencies and provinces), as they were not directly under British rule.
The external affairs of all of the princely states were under British control, and the British also exercised a general influence over the states' internal affairs, varying in degree according to the strength of the state. A factor in this was the ability of the British to grant or withhold the recognition of individual rulers. Some states continued to maintain their own military forces, but most of the 565 princely states in 1947 were very small and relied heavily on the British for most of the business of government. Some two hundred of the states had an area of less than 25 square kilometres.[12]
Following the Indian Rebellion of 1857, the Government of India Act 1858 made changes in the governance of India at three levels: in the imperial government in London, in the central government in Calcutta, and in the provincial governments in the presidencies (and later in the provinces).[13]
In London, it provided for a cabinet-level Secretary of State for India and a fifteen-member Council of India, whose members were required, as one prerequisite of membership, to have spent at least ten years in India and to have done so no more than ten years before.[14] Although the Secretary of State formulated the policy instructions to be communicated to India, he was required in most instances to consult the Council, but especially so in matters relating to spending of Indian revenues. The Act envisaged a system of "double government" in which the Council ideally served both as a check on excesses in imperial policy-making and as a body of up-to-date expertise on India. However, the Secretary of State also had special emergency powers that allowed him to make unilateral decisions, and, in reality, the Council's expertise was sometimes outdated.[15] From 1858 until 1947, twenty seven individuals served as Secretary of State for India and directed the India Office; these included: Sir Charles Wood (1859–1866), Marquess of Salisbury (1874–1878) (later Prime Minister of Britain), John Morley (1905–1910) (initiator of the Minto-Morley Reforms), E. S. Montagu (1917–1922) (an architect of the Montagu-Chelmsford reforms), and Frederick Pethick-Lawrence (1945–1947) (head of the 1946 Cabinet Mission to India). The size of the advisory Council was reduced over the next half-century, but its powers remained unchanged. In 1907, for the first time, two Indians were appointed to the Council.[16]
In Calcutta, the Governor-General remained head of the Government of India and now was more commonly called the Viceroy on account of his secondary role as the Crown's representative to the nominally sovereign princely states; he was, however, now responsible to the Secretary of State in London and through him to Parliament. A system of "double government" had already been in place during the Company's rule in India from the time of Pitt's India Act of 1784. The Governor-General in the capital, Calcutta, and the Governor in a subordinate presidency (Madras or Bombay) was each required to consult his advisory council; executive orders in Calcutta, for example, were issued in the name of "Governor-General-in-Council" (i.e. the Governor-General with the advice of the Council). The Company's system of "double government" had its critics, since, from the time of the system's inception, there had been intermittent feuding between the Governor-General and his Council; still, the Act of 1858 made no major changes in governance.[17] However, in the years immediately thereafter, which were also the years of post-rebellion reconstruction, the Viceroy Lord Canning found the collective decision-making of the Council to be too time-consuming for the pressing tasks ahead, so he requested the "portfolio system" of an Executive Council in which the business of each government department (the "portfolio") was assigned to and became the responsibility of a single Council member.[16] Routine departmental decisions were made exclusively by the member; however, important decisions required the consent of the Governor-General and, in the absence of such consent, required discussion by the entire Executive Council. This innovation in Indian governance was promulgated in the Indian Councils Act 1861.
If the Government of India needed to enact new laws, the Councils Act allowed for a Legislative Council—an expansion of the Executive Council by up to twelve additional members, each appointed to a two-year term—with half the members consisting of British officials of the government (termed official) and allowed to vote, and the other half, comprising Indians and domiciled Britons in India (termed non-official) and serving only in an advisory capacity.[18] All laws enacted by Legislative Councils in India, whether by the Imperial Legislative Council in Calcutta or by the provincial ones in Madras and Bombay, required the final assent of the Secretary of State in London; this prompted Sir Charles Wood, the second Secretary of State, to describe the Government of India as "a despotism controlled from home".[16] Moreover, although the appointment of Indians to the Legislative Council was a response to calls after the 1857 rebellion, most notably by Sir Sayyid Ahmad Khan, for more consultation with Indians, the Indians so appointed were from the landed aristocracy, often chosen for their loyalty, and far from representative.[19] Even so, the "... tiny advances in the practise of representative government were intended to provide safety valves for the expression of public opinion which had been so badly misjudged before the rebellion".[20] Indian affairs now also came to be more closely examined in the British Parliament and more widely discussed in the British press.[21]
| Viceroy |
Period of Tenure |
Events/Accomplishments |
| Charles Canning[22] |
1 Nov 1858
21 Mar 1862 |
1858 reorganisation of British Indian Army (contemporaneously and hereafter Indian Army)
Construction begins (1860): University of Bombay, University of Madras, and University of Calcutta
Indian Penal Code passed into law in 1860.
Upper Doab famine of 1860–1861
Indian Councils Act 1861
Establishment of Archaeological Survey of India in 1861
James Wilson, financial member of Council of India reorganises customs, imposes income tax, creates paper currency.
Indian Police Act of 1861, creation of Imperial Police later known as Indian Police Service. |
| Lord Elgin |
21 Mar 1862
20 Nov 1863 |
Dies prematurely in Dharamsala |
| John Lawrence[23] |
12 Jan 1864
12 Jan 1869 |
Anglo-Bhutan Duar War (1864–1865)
Orissa famine of 1866
Rajputana famine of 1869
Creation of Department of Irrigation.
Creation of Imperial Forestry Service in 1867 (now Indian Forest Service).
Possession of Nicobar Islands in 1869. |
| Lord Mayo[24] |
12 Jan 1869
8 Feb 1872 |
Creation of Department of Agriculture (now Ministry of Agriculture)
Major extension of railways, roads, and canals
Indian Councils Act of 1870
Creation of Andaman and Nicobar Islands as a Chief Commissionership (1872).
Assassination of Lord Mayo in the Andamans. |
| Lord Northbrook[24] |
3 May 1872
12 Apr 1876 |
Mortalities in Bihar famine of 1873–74 prevented by importation of rice from Burma.
Gaikwad of Baroda dethroned for misgovernment; dominions continued to a child ruler.
Indian Councils Act of 1874
Visit of the Prince of Wales, future Edward VII in 1875–76. |
| Lord Lytton |
12 Apr 1876
8 Jun 1880 |
Baluchistan established as a Chief Commissionership
Queen Victoria (in absentia) proclaimed Empress of India at Delhi Durbar of 1877.
Great Famine of 1876–78: 5.25 million dead; reduced relief offered at expense of Rs. 8 crore.
Creation of Famine Commission of 1878–80 under Sir Richard Strachey.
Indian Forest Act of 1878
Second Anglo-Afghan War. |
| Lord Ripon[25] |
8 Jun 1880
13 Dec 1884 |
End of Second Anglo-Afghan War.
Repeal of Vernacular Press Act of 1878. Compromise on the Ilbert Bill.
Local Government Acts extend self-government from towns to country.
University of Punjab established in Lahore in 1882
Famine Code promulgated in 1883 by the Government of India.
Creation of the Education Commission. Creation of indigenous schools, especially for Muslims.
Repeal of import duties on cotton and of most tariffs. Railway extension. |
| Lord Dufferin[26][27] |
13 Dec 1884
10 Dec 1888 |
Passage of Bengal Tenancy Bill
Third Anglo-Burmese War.
Joint Anglo-Russian Boundary Commission appointed for the Afghan frontier. Russian attack on Afghans at Panjdeh (1885). The Great Game in full play.
Report of Public Services Commission of 1886–87, creation of Imperial Civil Service (later Indian Civil Service (ICS), and today Indian Administrative Service)
University of Allahabad established in 1887
Queen Victoria's Jubilee, 1887. |
| Lord Lansdowne[28] |
10 Dec 1888
11 Oct 1894 |
Strengthening of NW Frontier defence. Creation of Imperial Service Troops consisting of regiments contributed by the princely states.
Gilgit Agency leased in 1899
British Parliament passes Indian Councils Act of 1892 opening the Imperial Legislative Council to Indians.
Revolution in princely state of Manipur and subsequent reinstatement of ruler.
High point of The Great Game. Establishment of the Durand Line between British India and Afghanistan,
Railways, roads, and irrigation works begun in Burma. Border between Burma and Siam finalised in 1893.
Fall of the Rupee, resulting from the steady depreciation of silver currency worldwide (1873–93).
Indian Prisons Act of 1894 |
| Lord Elgin |
11 Oct 1894
6 Jan 1899 |
Reorganisation of Indian Army (from Presidency System to the four Commands).
Pamir agreement Russia, 1895
The Chitral Campaign (1895), the Tirah Campaign (1896–97)
Indian famine of 1896–97 beginning in Bundelkhand.
Bubonic plague in Bombay (1896), Bubonic plague in Calcutta (1898); riots in wake of plague prevention measures.
Establishment of Provincial Legislative Councils in Burma and Punjab; the former a new Lieutenant Governorship. |
| Lord Curzon |
6 Jan 1899
18 Nov 1905 |
Creation of the North West Frontier Province (now Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa) under a Chief Commissioner (1901).
Indian famine of 1899–1900.
Return of the bubonic plague, 1 million deaths
Financial Reform Act of 1899; Gold Reserve Fund created for India.
Punjab Land Alienation Act
Inauguration of Department (now Ministry) of Commerce and Industry.
Death of Queen Victoria (1901); dedication of the Victoria Memorial Hall, Calcutta as a national gallery of Indian antiquities, art, and history.
Coronation Durbar in Delhi (1903); Edward VII (in absentia) proclaimed Emperor of India.
Francis Younghusband's British expedition to Tibet (1903–04)
North-Western Provinces (previously Ceded and Conquered Provinces) and Oudh renamed United Provinces in 1904
Reorganisation of Indian Universities Act (1904).
Systemization of preservation and restoration of ancient monuments by Archaeological Survey of India with Indian Ancient Monument Preservation Act.
Inauguration of agricultural banking with Cooperative Credit Societies Act of 1904
Partition of Bengal (1905); new province of East Bengal and Assam under a Lieutenant-Governor.
Census of 1901 gives the total population at 294 million, including 62 million in the princely states and 232 million in the Raj. About 170,000 are Europeans. 15 million men and 1 million women are literate. Of those school-aged, 25% of the boys and 3% of the girls attend. There are 207 million Hindus, and 63x million Muslims, along with 9 million Buddhists (in Burma), 3 million Christians, 2 million Sikhs, 1 million Jains, and 8.4 million who practise animism.[29]
|
| Lord Minto[30] |
18 Nov 1905
23 Nov 1910 |
Creation of the Railway Board
Anglo-Russian Convention of 1907
Indian Councils Act 1909 (also Minto-Morley Reforms)
Appointment of Indian Factories Commission in 1909.
Establishment of Department of Education in 1910 (now Ministry of Education) |
| Lord Hardinge |
23 Nov 1910
4 Apr 1916 |
Visit of King George V and Queen Mary in 1911: commemoration as Emperor and Empress of India at last Delhi Durbar
King George V announces creation of new city of New Delhi to replace Calcutta as capital of India.
Indian High Courts Act of 1911
Indian Factories Act of 1911
Construction of New Delhi, 1912–1929
World War I, Indian Army in: Western Front, Belgium, 1914; German East Africa (Battle of Tanga, 1914); Mesopotamian Campaign (Battle of Ctesiphon, 1915; Siege of Kut, 1915–16); Battle of Galliopoli, 1915–16
Passage of Defence of India Act 1915 |
| Lord Chelmsford |
4 Apr 1916
2 Apr 1921 |
Indian Army in: Mesopotamian Campaign (Fall of Baghdad, 1917); Sinai and Palestine Campaign (Battle of Megiddo, 1918)
Passage of Rowlatt Act, 1919
Government of India Act 1919 (also Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms)
Jallianwala Bagh Massacre, 1919
Third Anglo-Afghan War, 1919
University of Rangoon established in 1920. |
| Lord Reading |
2 Apr 1921
3 Apr 1926 |
University of Delhi established in 1922.
Indian Workers Compensation Act of 1923 |
| Lord Irwin |
3 Apr 1926
18 Apr 1931 |
Indian Trade Unions Act of 1926, Indian Forest Act, 1927
Appointment of Royal Commission of Indian Labour, 1929
Indian Constitutional Round Table Conferences, London, 1930–32, Gandhi-Irwin Pact, 1931. |
| Lord Willingdon |
18 Apr 1931
18 Apr 1936 |
New Delhi inaugurated as capital of India, 1931.
Indian Workmen's Compensation Act of 1933
Indian Factories Act of 1934
Royal Indian Air Force created in 1932.
Indian Military Academy established in 1932.
Government of India Act 1935
Creation of Reserve Bank of India |
| Lord Linlithgow |
18 Apr 1936
1 Oct 1943 |
Indian Payment of Wages Act of 1936
Burma administered independently after 1937 with creation of new cabinet position Secretary of State for India and Burma, and with the Burma Office separated off from the India Office
Indian Provincial Elections of 1937
Cripps' mission to India, 1942.
Indian Army in Mediterranean, Middle East and African theatres of World War II (North African campaign: (Operation Compass, Operation Crusader, First Battle of El Alamein, Second Battle of El Alamein. East African campaign, 1940, Anglo-Iraqi War, 1941, Syria-Lebanon campaign, 1941, Anglo-Soviet invasion of Iran, 1941)
Indian Army in Battle of Hong Kong, Battle of Malaya, Battle of Singapore
Burma Campaign of World War II begins in 1942. |
| Lord Wavell |
1 Oct 1943
21 Feb 1947 |
Indian Army becomes, at 2.5 million men, the largest all-volunteer force in history.
World War II: Burma Campaign, 1943–45 (Battle of Kohima, Battle of Imphal)
Bengal famine of 1943
Indian Army in Italian campaign (Battle of Monte Cassino)
British Labour Party wins UK General Election of 1945 with Clement Attlee as prime minister.
1946 Cabinet Mission to India
Indian Elections of 1946. |
| Lord Mountbatten |
21 Feb 1947
15 Aug 1947 |
Indian Independence Act 1947 of the British Parliament enacted on 18 July 1947.
Radcliffe Award, August 1947
Partition of India
India Office and position of Secretary of State for India abolished; ministerial responsibility within the United Kingdom for British relations with India and Pakistan is transferred to the Commonwealth Relations Office. |
Shaken by the events of the Indian rebellion of 1857, Britain dissolved the East India Company and transferred ruling power over India to the Crown. The princely states were mostly kept intact, though they lost their private armies and were more closely watched. The all-British units were doubled in number. After the rebellion, the British became more circumspect regarding rapid modernisation. Much thought was devoted to the causes of the rebellion, and from it three main lessons were drawn. At a more practical level, it was felt that there needed to be more communication and camaraderie between the British and Indians—not just between British army officers and their Indian staff but in civilian life as well. The Indian army was completely reorganised: units composed of the Muslims and Brahmins of the United Provinces of Agra and Oudh, who had formed the core of the rebellion, were disbanded.[31] New regiments, like the Sikhs and Baluchis, composed of Indians who, in British estimation, had demonstrated steadfastness, were formed. The Indian units lost their artillery. From then on, the Indian army was to remain unchanged in its organisation until 1947.[32] The 1861 Census had revealed that the English population in India was 125,945. Of these only about 41,862 were civilians as compared with about 84,083 European officers and men of the Army.[33] In 1880, the standing Indian Army consisted of 66,000 British soldiers, 130,000 Natives, and 350,000 soldiers in the princely armies.[34]
Administrative control of India came under the prestigious Indian Civil Service which had administrative control over all districts outside the princely states. At first all-British, it included increasing proportions of Indians, and totalled about 1000 men. They were very well organised, well-educated and professional, and avoided the bribes and inside deals that had made for great wealth among the officials of the defunct East India Company.[35]
The British decided that both the princes and the large land-holders, by not joining the rebellion, had proved to be, in Lord Canning's words, "breakwaters in a storm".[31] They too were rewarded in the new British Raj by being officially recognised in the treaties each state now signed with the Crown.[32] At the same time, it was felt that the peasants, for whose benefit the large land-reforms of the United Provinces had been undertaken, had shown disloyalty, by, in many cases, fighting for their former landlords against the British. Consequently, no more land reforms were implemented for the next 90 years: Bengal and Bihar were to remain the realms of large land holdings (unlike the Punjab and Uttar Pradesh).[32]
Singha argues that after 1857 the colonial government strengthened and expanded its infrastructure via the court system, legal procedures, and statutes. New legislation merged the Crown and the old John Company courts and introduced a new penal code as well as new codes of civil and criminal procedure, based largely on English law. In the 1860s–1880s the Raj set up compulsory registration of births, deaths, and marriages, as well as adoptions, property deeds, and wills. The goal was to create a stable, usable public record and verifiable identities. However there was opposition from both Muslim and Hindu elements who complained that the new procedures for census-taking and registration threatened to uncover female privacy. Purdah rules prohibited women from saying their husband's name or having their photograph taken. An all-India census was conducted between 1868 and 1871, often using total numbers of females in a household rather than individual names. Select groups which the Raj reformers wanted to monitor statistically included those reputed to practice female infanticide, prostitutes, lepers, and eunuchs.[36]
Increasingly officials discovered that traditions and customs in India were too strong and too rigid to be changed easily. There were few new social interventions, especially not in matters dealing with religion, even when the British felt very strongly about the issue (as in the instance of the remarriage of Hindu child widows).[32] Indeed, Murshid argues that women were in some ways more restricted by the modernisation of the laws. They remained tied to the strictures of their religion, caste, and customs, but now with an overlay of British Victorian. Their inheritance rights to own and manage property were curtailed; the new English laws were somewhat harsher. Court rulings restricted the rights of second wives and their children regarding inheritance. A woman had to belong to either a father or a husband to have any rights.[37]
Thomas Babington Macaulay made schooling a priority for the Raj in his famous minute of February 1835; the language of instruction would be English. Macaulay succeeded in implementing ideas previously put forward by Lord William Bentinck, the governor general since 1829. Bentinck favoured the replacement of Persian by English as the official language, the use of English as the medium of instruction, and the training of English-speaking Indians as teachers. He was inspired by utilitarian ideas and called for "useful learning." However, Bentinck's proposals were rejected by London officials.[38][39] The Raj opened thousands of elementary and secondary schools, using tax money; they usually had an all-male student body.
The Raj established the universities of Calcutta, Bombay, and Madras in 1857, just before the Rebellion. By 1890 some 60,000 Indians had matriculated, chiefly in the liberal arts or law. About a third entered public administration, and another third became lawyers. The result was a very well educated professional state bureaucracy. By 1887 of 21,000 midlevel civil service appointments, 45% were held by Hindus, 7% by Muslims, 19% by Eurasians (European father and Indian mother), and 29% by Europeans. Of the 1000 top -level positions, almost all were held by Britons, typically with an Oxbridge degree.[40] The Raj, often working with local philanthropists, opened 186 universities and colleges of higher education by 1911; they enrolled 36,000 students (over 90% men). By 1939 the number of institutions had doubled and enrolment reached 145,000. The curriculum followed classical British standards of the sort set by Oxford and Cambridge and stressed English literature and European history. Nevertheless by the 1920s the student bodies had become hotbeds of Indian nationalism.[41]
The Indian economy grew at about 1% per year from 1880 to 1920, and the population also grew at 1%.[42] The result was, on average, no long-term change in per capita income levels. Agriculture was still dominant, with most peasants at the subsistence level. Extensive irrigation systems were built, providing an impetus for switching to cash crops for export and for raw materials for Indian industry, especially jute, cotton, sugarcane, coffee and tea.[43] Historians have been bitterly divided on issues of economic history, with the Nationalist school (following Nehru) arguing that India was poorer at the end of British rule than at the beginning and that impoverishment occurred because of the British.[44]
The entrepreneur Jamsetji Tata (1839–1904) began his industrial career in 1877 with the Central India Spinning, Weaving, and Manufacturing Company in Bombay. While other Indian mills produced cheap coarse yarn (and later cloth) using local short-staple cotton and cheap machinery imported from Britain, Tata did much better by importing expensive longer-stapled cotton from Egypt and buying more complex ring-spindle machinery from the United States to spin finer yarn that could compete with imports from Britain.[45]
In the 1890s, he launched plans to move into heavy industry using Indian funding. The Raj did not provide capital, but aware of Britain's declining position against the U.S. and Germany in the steel industry, it wanted steel mills in India so it is did promise to purchase any surplus steel Tata could not otherwise sell.[46] The Tata Iron and Steel Company (TISCO), now headed by his son Dorabji Tata (1859–1932), opened its plant at Jamshedpur in Bihar in 1908. It used American technology, not British[47] and became the leading iron and steel producer in India, with 120,000 employees in 1945. TISCO became a India's proud symbol of technical skill, managerial competence, entrepreneurial flair, and high pay for industrial workers.[48] The Tata family, like most of India's big businessmen, were Indian nationalists but did not trust the Congress because it seemed too aggressively hostile to the Raj, too socialist, and too supportive of trade unions.[49]
The railway network in 1909, when it was the fourth largest railway network in the world.
India built a modern railway system in the late 19th century which was the fourth largest in the world. The railways at first were privately owned and operated. It was run by British administrators, engineers and craftsmen. At first, only the unskilled workers were Indians.[50]
The John Company (and later the colonial government) encouraged new railway companies backed by private investors under a scheme that would provide land and guarantee an annual return of up to five percent during the initial years of operation. The companies were to build and operate the lines under a 99 year lease, with the government having the option to buy them earlier.[51]
Two new railway companies, Great Indian Peninsular Railway (GIPR) and East Indian Railway (EIR) began in 1853–54 to construct and operate lines near Bombay and Calcutta. The first passenger railway line in North India between Allahabad and Kanpur opened in 1859.
In 1854 Governor-General Lord Dalhousie formulated a plan to construct a network of trunk lines connecting the principal regions of India. Encouraged by the government guarantees, investment flowed in and a series of new rail companies were established, leading to rapid expansion of the rail system in India.[52] Soon several large princely states built their own rail systems and the network spread to the regions that became the modern-day states of Assam, Rajasthan and Andhra Pradesh. The route mileage of this network increased from 1,349 kilometres (838 mi) in 1860 to 25,495 kilometres (15,842 mi) in 1880 – mostly radiating inland from the three major port cities of Bombay, Madras, and Calcutta.[53] Most of the railway construction was done by Indian companies supervised by British engineers. The system was heavily built, using a wide gauge, sturdy tracks and strong bridges. By 1900 India had a full range of rail services with diverse ownership and management, operating on broad, metre and narrow gauge networks. In 1900 the government took over the GIPR network, while the company continued to manage it. In the First World War, the railways were used to transport troops and grains to the ports of Bombay and Karachi en route to Britain, Mesopotamia, and East Africa. With shipments of equipment and parts from Britain curtailed, maintenance became much more difficult; critical workers entered the army; workshops were converted to making artillery; some locomotives and cars were shipped to the Middle East. The railways could barely keep up with the increased demand.[54] By the end of the war, the railways had deteriorated for lack of maintenance and were not profitable. In 1923, both GIPR and EIR were nationalised.
"The most magnificent railway station in the world."
Victoria Terminus, Bombay, was completed in 1888.
Headrick shows that until the 1930s, both the Raj lines and the private companies hired only European supervisors, civil engineers, and even operating personnel, such as locomotive engineers. The government's Stores Policy required that bids on railway contracts be made to the India Office in London, shutting out most Indian firms. The railway companies purchased most of their hardware and parts in Britain. There were railway maintenance workshops in India, but they were rarely allowed to manufacture or repair locomotives. TISCO steel could not obtain orders for rails until the war emergency.[55]
The Second World War severely crippled the railways as rolling stock was diverted to the Middle East, and the railway workshops were converted into munitions workshops.[56] After independence in 1947, forty-two separate railway systems, including thirty-two lines owned by the former Indian princely states, were amalgamated to form a single nationalised unit named the Indian Railways.
India provides an example of the British Empire pouring its money and expertise into a very well built system designed for military reasons (after the Mutiny of 1857), and with the hope that it would stimulate industry. The system was overbuilt and too expensive for the small amount of freight traffic it carried. However, it did capture the imagination of the Indians, who saw their railways as the symbol of an industrial modernity—but one that was not realised until after Independence. Christensen (1996) looks at of colonial purpose, local needs, capital, service, and private-versus-public interests. He concludes that making the railways a creature of the state hindered success because railway expenses had to go through the same time-consuming and political budgeting process as did all other state expenses. Railway costs could therefore not be tailored to the timely needs of the railways or their passengers.[57]
In the second half of the 19th century, both the direct administration of India by the British crown and the technological change ushered in by the industrial revolution had the effect of closely intertwining the economies of India and Great Britain.[58] In fact many of the major changes in transport and communications (that are typically associated with Crown Rule of India) had already begun before the Mutiny. Since Dalhousie had embraced the technological revolution underway in Britain, India too saw rapid development of all those technologies. Railways, roads, canals, and bridges were rapidly built in India and telegraph links equally rapidly established in order that raw materials, such as cotton, from India's hinterland could be transported more efficiently to ports, such as Bombay, for subsequent export to England.[59] Likewise, finished goods from England, were transported back, just as efficiently, for sale in the burgeoning Indian markets. Massive railway projects were begun in earnest and government railway jobs and pensions attracted a large number of upper caste Hindus into the civil service for the first time. The Indian Civil Service was prestigious and paid well, but it remained politically neutral.[60] British cotton exports covered 55% of the Indian market by 1875.[61] Industrial production as it developed in European factories was unknown until the 1850s when the first cotton mills were opened in Bombay, posing a challenge to the cottage-based home production system based on family labour.[62]
Taxes in India decreased during the colonial period for most of India's population; with the land tax revenue claiming 15% of India's national income during Mogul times compared with 1% at the end of the colonial period. The percentage of national income for the village economy increased from 44% during Mogul times to 54% by the end of colonial period. India's per capita GDP decreased from $550 in 1700 to $520 by 1857, although it had increased to $618 by 1947[63]
By 1880 a new middle-class had arisen in India and spread thinly across the country.[64] Moreover, there was a growing solidarity among its members, created by the "joint stimuli of encouragement and irritation."[64] The encouragement felt by this class came from its success in education and its ability to avail itself of the benefits of that education such as employment in the Indian Civil Service.[65] It came too from Queen Victoria's proclamation of 1858 in which she had declared, "We hold ourselves bound to the natives of our Indian territories by the same obligation of duty which bind us to all our other subjects."[66] Indians were especially encouraged when Canada was granted dominion status in 1867 and established an autonomous democratic constitution.[66] Lastly, the encouragement came from the work of contemporaneous Oriental scholars like Monier Monier-Williams and Max Müller, who in their works had been presenting ancient India as a great civilisation.[64] The irritation, on the other hand, came not just from incidents of racial discrimination at the hands of the British in India, but also from governmental actions like the use of Indian troops in imperial campaigns (e.g. in the Second Anglo-Afghan War) and the attempts to control the vernacular press (e.g. in the Vernacular Press Act of 1878).[64]
It was, however, Viceroy Lord Ripon's partial reversal of the Ilbert Bill (1883), a legislative measure that had proposed putting Indian judges in the Bengal Presidency on equal footing with British ones, that transformed the discontent into political action.[65] On 28 December 1885, professionals and intellectuals from this middle-class—many educated at the new British-founded universities in Bombay, Calcutta, and Madras, and familiar with the ideas of British political philosophers, especially the utilitarians assembled in Bombay. The seventy men founded the Indian National Congress; Womesh Chandra Bonerjee was elected the first president. The membership comprised a westernised elite, and no effort was made at this time to broaden the base.
During its first twenty years, the Congress primarily debated British policy toward India; however, its debates created a new Indian outlook that held Great Britain responsible for draining India of its wealth. Britain did this, the nationalists claimed, by unfair trade, by the restraint on indigenous Indian industry, and by the use of Indian taxes to pay the high salaries of the British civil servants in India.[67]
Gopal Krishna Gokhale, a constitutional social reformer and moderate nationalist, was elected president of the Indian National Congress in 1905.
Social reform was in the air by the 1880s. For example, Pandita Ramabai, poet, Sanskrit scholar, and a champion of the emancipation of Indian women, took up the cause of widow remarriage, especially of Brahamin widows, later converted to Christianity.[68] By 1900 reform movements had taken root within the Indian National Congress. Congress member Gopal Krishna Gokhale founded the Servants of India Society, which lobbied for legislative reform (for example, for a law to permit the remarriage of Hindu child widows), and whose members took vows of poverty, and worked among the untouchable community.[69]
By 1905 a deep gulf opened between the moderates, led by Gokhale, who downplayed public agitation, and the new "extremists" who not only advocated agitation, but also regarded the pursuit of social reform as a distraction from nationalism. Prominent among the extremists was Bal Gangadhar Tilak, who attempted to mobilise Indians by appealing to an explicitly Hindu political identity, displayed, for example, in the annual public Ganapati festivals that he inaugurated in western India.[70]
The viceroy Lord Curzon (1899–1905) was unusually energetic in pursuit of efficiency and reform.,[71] His agenda included the creation of the North-West Frontier Province; small changes in the Civil Service; speeding up the operations of the secretariat; setting up a gold standard to ensure a stable currency; creation of a Railway Board; irrigation reform; reduction of peasant debts; lowering the cost of telegrams; archaeological research and the preservation of antiquities; improvements in the universities; police reforms; upgrading the roles of the Native States; a new Commerce and Industry Department; promotion of industry; revised land revenue policies; lowering taxes; setting up agricultural banks; creating an Agricultural Department; sponsoring agricultural research; establishing an Imperial Library; creating an Imperial Cadet Corps; new famine codes; and, indeed, reducing the smoke nuisance in Calcutta.[72]
Viceroy
Curzon, (1899–1905); he promoted many reforms but his partitioning of Bengal into Muslim and Hindu states outraged Hindus
Trouble emerged for Curzon when he divided the largest administrative subdivision in British India, the Bengal Presidency, into the Muslim-majority province of East Bengal and Assam and the Hindu-majority province of Weat Bengal (present-day Indian states of West Bengal, Bihār, and Orissa). Curzon's act, the Partition of Bengal—which some considered administratively felicitous, and, which had been contemplated by various colonial administrations since the time of Lord William Bentinck, but never acted upon—was to transform nationalist politics as nothing else before it. The Hindu elite of Bengal, among them many who owned land in East Bengal that was leased out to Muslim peasants, protested fervidly.[73]
File:B 0110A.jpg
Sir Surendranath Banerjee, a Congress moderate, who led the opposition to the partition of Bengal with the Swadeshi movement to buy Indian-made cloth
The large Bengali Hindu middle-class (the Bhadralok), upset at the prospect of Bengalis being outnumbered in the new Bengal province by Biharis and Oriyas, felt that Curzon's act was punishment for their political assertiveness. The pervasive protests against Curzon's decision took the form predominantly of the Swadeshi ("buy Indian") campaign led by two-time Congress president, Surendranath Banerjee, and involved boycott of British goods.[74]
Cover of a 1909 issue of the Tamil magazine,
Vijaya showing "Mother India" with her diverse progeny and the rallying cry "Vande Mataram"
The rallying cry for both types of protest was the slogan Bande Mataram ("Hail to the Mother"), which invoked a mother goddess, who stood variously for Bengal, India, and the Hindu goddess Kali. Sri Aurobindo never went beyond the law when he edited the Bande Mataram magazine; it preached freedom but within the bounds of peace as far as possible. Its goal was Passive Resistance.[75] The unrest spread from Calcutta to the surrounding regions of Bengal when students returned home to their villages and towns. Some engaged in robbery to fund terrorist activities such as bombing public buildings, but the conspiracies generally failed in the face of intense police work.[76]
In 1906 the civil police (completely separate from the Army) comprised 29,000 officers and 138,000 men.[77] Arnold shows that in the Madras presidency the armed police were divided into the district reserves and the striking forces. Armed with seven-foot metal tipped lathis and smoothbore muskets, and tear gas after 1940, they repressed the disturbances of 1930–33. Special striking forces included the Malabar Special Police, armed with Enfield rifles. It was established to handle the Moplah rebellion of 1921 and was used throughout the presidency. The Presidency General Reserve was established in 1931.[78]
The Swadeshi boycott movement cut imports of British textiles by 25%. The swadeshi cloth, although more expensive and somewhat less comfortable than its Lancashire competitor, was worn as a mark of national pride by people all over India.[79]
1909 Prevailing Religions, Map of British India, 1909, showing the prevailing majority religions based on the Census of 1901
The Hindu protests against the partition of Bengal led the Muslim elite in India to organise in 1906 the All India Muslim League. The League favoured the partition of Bengal, since it gave them a Muslim majority in the eastern half. In 1905, when Tilak and Lajpat Rai attempted to rise to leadership positions in the Congress, and the Congress itself rallied around symbolism of Kali, Muslim fears increased. The Muslim elite, including Dacca Nawab and Khwaja Salimullah, expected that a new province with a Muslim majority would directly benefit Muslims aspiring to political power.[80]
Lord Minto, the Conservative viceroy met with the Muslim delegation in June 1906. The
Minto-Morley Reforms of 1909 called for separate Muslim electorates.
The first steps were taken toward self-government in British India in the late 19th century with the appointment of Indian counsellors to advise the British viceroy and the establishment of provincial councils with Indian members; the British subsequently widened participation in legislative councils with the Indian Councils Act of 1892. Municipal Corporations and District Boards were created for local administration; they included elected Indian members.
The Indian Councils Act 1909, known as the Morley-Minto Reforms (John Morley was the secretary of state for India, and Minto was viceroy) — gave Indians limited roles in the central and provincial legislatures. Upper class Indians, rich lanndowners and businessmen were favoured. The Moslem community was made a separate electorate and granted double representation. The goals were quite conservative but they did advance the elective principle.[30]
The partition of Bengal was rescinded in 1911 and announced at the Delhi Durbar at which King George V came in person and was crowned Emperor of India. He announced the capital would be moved from Calcutta to Delhi, a Moslem stronghold. Morley was especially vigilant in crushing revolutionary groups[81]
The First World War would prove to be a watershed in the imperial relationship between Britain and India. Some 1.4 million Indian and British soldiers of the British Indian Army took part in the war, primarily in Iraq and the Middle East. Their participation had a wider cultural fallout as news spread how bravely soldiers fought and died alongside British soldiers, as well as soldiers from dominions like Canada and Australia.[82] India's international profile rose during the 1920s, as it became a founding member of the League of Nations in 1920 and participated, under the name, "Les Indes Anglaises" (British India), in the 1920 Summer Olympics in Antwerp.[83] Back in India, especially among the leaders of the Indian National Congress, the war led to calls for greater self-government for Indians.[82]
After the 1906 split between the moderates and the extremists, organised political activity by the Congress had remained fragmented until 1914, when Bal Gangadhar Tilak was released from prison and began to sound out other Congress leaders about possible re-unification. That, however, had to wait until the demise of Tilak's principal moderate opponents, Gopal Krishna Gokhale and Pherozeshah Mehta, in 1915, whereupon an agreement was reached for Tilak's ousted group to re-enter the Congress.[82] In the 1916 Lucknow session of the Congress, Tilak's supporters were able to push through a more radical resolution which asked for the British to declare that it was their, "aim and intention ... to confer self-government on India at an early date."[82] Soon, other such rumblings began to appear in public pronouncements: in 1917, in the Imperial Legislative Council, Madan Mohan Malaviya spoke of the expectations the war had generated in India, "I venture to say that the war has put the clock ... fifty years forward ... (The) reforms after the war will have to be such, ... as will satisfy the aspirations of her (India's) people to take their legitimate part in the administration of their own country."[82]
The 1916 Lucknow Session of the Congress was also the venue of an unanticipated mutual effort by the Congress and the Muslim League, the occasion for which was provided by the wartime partnership between Germany and Turkey. Since the Turkish Sultan, or Khalifah, had also sporadically claimed guardianship of the Islamic holy sites of Mecca, Medina, and Jerusalem, and since the British and their allies were now in conflict with Turkey, doubts began to increase among some Indian Muslims about the "religious neutrality" of the British, doubts that had already surfaced as a result of the reunification of Bengal in 1911, a decision that was seen as ill-disposed to Muslims.[84] In the Lucknow Pact, the League joined the Congress in the proposal for greater self-government that was campaigned for by Tilak and his supporters; in return, the Congress accepted separate electorates for Muslims in the provincial legislatures as well as the Imperial Legislative Council. In 1916, the Muslim League had anywhere between 500 and 800 members and did not yet have its wider following among Indian Muslims of later years; in the League itself, the pact did not have unanimous backing, having largely been negotiated by a group of "Young Party" Muslims from the United Provinces (UP), most prominently, two brothers Mohammad and Shaukat Ali, who had embraced the Pan-Islamic cause;[84] however, it did have the support of a young lawyer from Bombay, Muhammad Ali Jinnah, who was later to rise to leadership roles in both the League and the Indian freedom movement. In later years, as the full ramifications of the pact unfolded, it was seen as benefiting the Muslim minority élites of provinces like UP and Bihar more than the Muslim majorities of Punjab and Bengal, nonetheless, at the time, the "Lucknow Pact," was an important milestone in nationalistic agitation and was seen so by the British.[84]
During 1916, two Home Rule Leagues were founded within the Indian National Congress by Tilak and Annie Besant, respectively, to promote Home Rule among Indians, and also to elevate the stature of the founders within the Congress itself.[85] Mrs. Besant, for her part, was also keen to demonstrate the superiority of this new form of organised agitation, which had achieved some success in the Irish home rule movement, to the political violence that had intermittently plagued the subcontinent during the years 1907–1914.[85] The two Leagues focused their attention on complementary geographical regions: Tilak's in western India, in the southern Bombay presidency, and Mrs. Besant's in the rest of the country, but especially in the Madras Presidency and in regions like Sind and Gujarat that had hitherto been considered politically dormant by the Congress.[85] Both leagues rapidly acquired new members – approximately thirty thousand each in a little over a year – and began to publish inexpensive newspapers. Their propaganda also turned to posters, pamphlets, and political-religious songs, and later to mass meetings, which not only attracted greater numbers than in earlier Congress sessions, but also entirely new social groups such as non-Brahmins, traders, farmers, students, and lower-level government workers.[85] Although they did not achieve the magnitude or character of a nation-wide mass movement, the Home Rule leagues both deepened and widened organised political agitation for self-rule in India. The British authorities reacted by imposing restrictions on the Leagues, including shutting out students from meetings and banning the two leaders from travelling to certain provinces.[85]
The year 1915 also saw the return of Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi to India. Already known in India as a result of his civil liberties protests on behalf of the Indians in South Africa, Gandhi followed the advice of his mentor Gopal Krishna Gokhale and chose not to make any public pronouncements during the first year of his return, but instead spent the year travelling, observing the country first-hand, and writing.[86] Earlier, during his South Africa sojourn, Gandhi, a lawyer by profession, had represented an Indian community, which, although small, was sufficiently diverse to be a microcosm of India itself. In tackling the challenge of holding this community together and simultaneously confronting the colonial authority, he had created a technique of non-violent resistance, which he labelled Satyagraha (or, Striving for Truth).[87] For Gandhi, Satyagraha was different from "passive resistance," by then a familiar technique of social protest, which he regarded as a practical strategy adopted by the weak in the face of superior force; Satyagraha, on the other hand, was for him the "last resort of those strong enough in their commitment to truth to undergo suffering in its cause."[87] Ahimsa or "non-violence," which formed the underpinning of Satyagraha, came to represent the twin pillar, with Truth, of Gandhi's unorthodox religious outlook on life.[87] During the years 1907–1914, Gandhi tested the technique of Satyagraha in a number of protests on behalf of the Indian community in South Africa against the unjust racial laws.[87]
Also, during his time in South Africa, in his essay, Hind Swaraj, (1909), Gandhi formulated his vision of Swaraj, or "self-rule" for India based on three vital ingredients: solidarity between Indians of different faiths, but most of all between Hindus and Muslims; the removal of untouchability from Indian society; and the exercise of swadeshi – the boycott of manufactured foreign goods and the revival of Indian cottage industry.[86] The first two, he felt, were essential for India to be an egalitarian and tolerant society, one befitting the principles of Truth and Ahimsa, while the last, by making Indians more self-reliant, would break the cycle of dependence that was not only perpetrating the direction and tenor of the British rule in India, but also the British commitment to it.[86] At least until 1920, the British presence itself, was not a stumbling block in Gandhi's conception of swaraj; rather, it was the inability of Indians to create the right society.[86]
-
Indian medical orderlies attending to wounded soldiers with the Mesopotamian Expeditionary Force in Mesopotamia during World War I.
-
Sepoy Khudadad Khan, the first Indian to be awarded the Victoria Cross, the British Empire's highest war-time medal for gallantry. Khan, who hailed from Chakwal District, Punjab, in present-day Pakistan, died in 1971.
-
Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi (seated in carriage, on the right, eyes downcast, with black flat-top hat) receives a big welcome in Karachi in 1916 after his return to India from South Africa.
-
Jinnah lucknow pact1916.jpg
Muhammad Ali Jinnah, seated, third from the left, was a supporter of the Lucknow Pact, which, in 1916, ended the three-way rift between the Extremists, the Moderates and the League.
[edit] Satyagraha, Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms: 1917–1919
Gandhi made his political debut in India in 1917 in Champaran district in Bihar, near the Nepal border, where he was invited by a group of disgruntled tenant farmers who, for many years, had been forced into planting indigo (for dyes) on a portion of their land and then selling it at below-market prices to the British planters who had leased them the land.[88] Upon his arrival in the district, Gandhi was joined by other agitators, including a young Congress leader, Rajendra Prasad, from Bihar, who would become a become a loyal supporter of Gandhi and go on to play a prominent role in the Indian freedom movement. When Gandhi was ordered to leave by the local British authorities, he refused on moral grounds, setting up his refusal as a form of individual Satyagraha. Soon, under pressure from the Viceroy in Delhi who was anxious to maintain domestic peace during war-time, the provincial government rescinded Gandhi's expulsion order, and later agreed to an official enquiry into the case. Although, the British planters eventually gave in, they were not won over to the farmers' cause, and thereby did not produce the optimal outcome of a Satyagraha that Gandhi had hoped for; similarly, the farmers themselves, although pleased at the resolution, responded less than enthusiastically to the concurrent projects of rural empowerment and education that Gandhi had inaugurated in keeping with his ideal of swaraj. The following year Gandhi launched two more Satyagrahas – both in his native Gujarat – one in the rural Kaira district where land-owning farmers were protesting increased land-revenue and the other in the city of Ahmedabad, where workers in an Indian-owned textile mill were distressed about their low wages. The satyagraha in Ahmedabad took the form of Gandhi fasting and supporting the workers in a strike, which eventually led to a settlement. In Kaira, in contrast, although the farmers' cause received publicity from Gandhi's presence, the satyagraha itself, which consisted of the farmers' collective decision to withhold payment, was not immediately successful, as the British authorities refused to back down. The agitation in Kaira gained for Gandhi another life-long lieutenant in Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, who had organised the farmers, and who too would go on to play a leadership role in the Indian freedom movement.[89] Champaran, Kaira, and Ahmedabad were important milestones in the history of Gandhi's new methods of social protest in India.
In 1916, in the face of new strength demonstrated by the nationalists with the signing of the Lucknow Pact and the founding of the Home Rule leagues, and the realisation, after the disaster in the Mesopotamian campaign, that the war would likely last longer, the new Viceroy, Lord Chelmsford, cautioned that the Government of India needed to be more responsive to Indian opinion.[90] Towards the end of the year, after discussions with the government in London, he suggested that the British demonstrate their good faith – in light of the Indian war role – through a number of public actions, including awards of titles and honours to princes, granting of commissions in the army to Indians, and removal of the much-reviled cotton excise duty, but, most importantly, an announcement of Britain's future plans for India and an indication of some concrete steps. After more discussion, in August 1917, the new Liberal Secretary of State for India, Edwin Montagu, announced the British aim of "increasing association of Indians in every branch of the administration, and the gradual development of self-governing institutions, with a view to the progressive realisation of responsible government in India as an integral part of the British Empire."[90] Although the plan envisioned limited self-government at first only in the provinces – with India emphatically within the British Empire – it represented the first British proposal for any form of representative government in a non-white colony.
Earlier, at the onset of World War I, the reassignment of most of the British army in India to Europe and Mesopotamia, had led the previous Viceroy, Lord Harding, to worry about the "risks involved in denuding India of troops."[82] Revolutionary violence had already been a concern in British India; consequently, in 1915, to strengthen its powers during what it saw was a time of increased vulnerability, the Government of India passed the Defence of India Act, which allowed it to intern politically dangerous dissidents without due process, and added to the power it already had – under the 1910 Press Act – both to imprison journalists without trial and to censor the press.[91] It was under the Defence of India act that the Ali brothers were imprisoned in 1916, and Annie Besant, a European woman, and ordinarily more problematic to imprison, in 1917.[91] Now, as constitutional reform began to be discussed in earnest, the British began to consider how new moderate Indians could be brought into the fold of constitutional politics and, simultaneously, how the hand of established constitutionalists could be strengthened. However, since the Government of India wanted to ensure against any sabotage of the reform process by extremists, and since its reform plan was devised during a time when extremist violence had ebbed as a result of increased governmental control, it also began to consider how some of its war-time powers could be extended into peace time.[91]
Consequently, in 1917, even as Edwin Montagu, announced the new constitutional reforms, a committee chaired by a British judge, Mr. S. A. T. Rowlatt, was tasked with investigating "revolutionary conspiracies," with the unstated goal of extending the government's war-time powers.[90] The Rowlatt committee presented its report in July 1918 and identified three regions of conspiratorial insurgency: Bengal, the Bombay presidency, and the Punjab.[90] To combat subversive acts in these regions, the committee recommended that the government use emergency powers akin to its war-time authority, which included the ability to try cases of sedition by a panel of three judges and without juries, exaction of securities from suspects, governmental overseeing of residences of suspects,[90] and the power for provincial governments to arrest and detain suspects in short-term detention facilities and without trial.[92]
With the end of World War I, there was also a change in the economic climate. By year's end 1919, 1.5 million Indians had served in the armed services in either combatant or non-combatant roles, and India had provided £146 million in revenue for the war.[93] The increased taxes coupled with disruptions in both domestic and international trade had the effect of approximately doubling the index of overall prices in India between 1914 and 1920.[93] Returning war veterans, especially in the Punjab, created a growing unemployment crisis,[94] and post-war inflation led to food riots in Bombay, Madras, and Bengal provinces,[94] a situation that was made only worse by the failure of the 1918–19 monsoon and by profiteering and speculation.[93] The global influenza epidemic and the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917 added to the general jitters; the former among the population already experiencing economic woes,[94] and the latter among government officials, fearing a similar revolution in India.[95]
To combat what it saw as a coming crisis, the government now drafted the Rowlatt committee's recommendations into two Rowlatt Bills.[92] Although the bills were authorised for legislative consideration by Edwin Montagu, they were done so unwillingly, with the accompanying declaration, "I loathe the suggestion at first sight of preserving the Defence of India Act in peace time to such an extent as Rowlatt and his friends think necessary."[90] In the ensuing discussion and vote in the Imperial Legislative Council, all Indian members voiced opposition to the bills. The Government of India was, nevertheless, able to use of its "official majority" to ensure passage of the bills early in 1919.[90] However, what it passed, in deference to the Indian opposition, was a lesser version of the first bill, which now allowed extrajudicial powers, but for a period of exactly three years and for the prosecution solely of "anarchical and revolutionary movements," dropping entirely the second bill involving modification the Indian Penal Code.[90] Even so, when it was passed, the new Rowlatt Act aroused widespread indignation throughout India, and brought Gandhi to the forefront of the nationalist movement.[92]
Meanwhile, Montagu and Chelmsford themselves finally presented their report in July 1918 after a long fact-finding trip through India the previous winter.[96] After more discussion by the government and parliament in Britain, and another tour by the Franchise and Functions Committee for the purpose of identifying who among the Indian population could vote in future elections, the Government of India Act 1919 (also known as the Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms) was passed in December 1919.[96] The new Act enlarged both the provincial and Imperial legislative councils and repealed the Government of India's recourse to the "official majority" in unfavourable votes.[96] Although departments like defence, foreign affairs, criminal law, communications, and income-tax were retained by the Viceroy and the central government in New Delhi, other departments like public health, education, land-revenue, local self-government were transferred to the provinces.[96] The provinces themselves were now to be administered under a new dyarchical system, whereby some areas like education, agriculture, infrastructure development, and local self-government became the preserve of Indian ministers and legislatures, and ultimately the Indian electorates, while others like irrigation, land-revenue, police, prisons, and control of media remained within the purview of the British governor and his executive council.[96] The new Act also made it easier for Indians to be admitted into the civil service and the army officer corps.
A greater number of Indians were now enfranchised, although, for voting at the national level, they constituted only 10% of the total adult male population, many of whom were still illiterate.[96] In the provincial legislatures, the British continued to exercise some control by setting aside seats for special interests they considered cooperative or useful. In particular, rural candidates, generally sympathetic to British rule and less confrontational, were assigned more seats than their urban counterparts.[96] Seats were also reserved for non-Brahmins, landowners, businessmen, and college graduates. The principal of "communal representation," an integral part of the Minto-Morley reforms, and more recently of the Congress-Muslim League Lucknow Pact, was reaffirmed, with seats being reserved for Muslims, Sikhs, Indian Christians, Anglo-Indians, and domiciled Europeans, in both provincial and Imperial legislative councils.[96] The Montagu-Chelmsford reforms offered Indians the most significant opportunity yet for exercising legislative power, especially at the provincial level; however, that opportunity was also restricted by the still limited number of eligible voters, by the small budgets available to provincial legislatures, and by the presence of rural and special interest seats that were seen as instruments of British control.[96] Its scope was unsatisfactory to the Indian political leadership, famously expressed by Annie Beasant as something "unworthy of England to offer and India to accept".[97][citation not found]
The Jallianwala Bagh massacre or "Amritsar massacre", took place in the Jallianwala Bagh public garden in the predominantly Sikh northern city of Amritsar. After days of unrest Brigadier-General Reginald E.H. Dyer forbade public meetings and on Sunday 13 April 1919 fifty British Indian Army soldiers commanded by Dyer began shooting at an unarmed gathering of thousands of men, women, and children without warning. Casualty estimates vary widely, with the Government of India reporting 379 dead, with 1,100 wounded.[98] The Indian National Congress estimated three times the number of dead. Dyer was removed from duty but he became a celebrated hero in Britain among people with connections to the Raj.[99] Historians consider the episode was a decisive step towards the end of British rule in India.[100]
Raghaven argues that the massacre caused a reevaluation the Army's role, to make it more pragmatic and nuanced rather than rely on brute force to overawe or punish the natives. The new policy became minimum force. The army was retrained and developed suitable tactics such as crowd control.[101]
-
Gandhi at the time of the Kheda Satyagraha, 1918.
-
-
Headlines about the Rowlatt Bills (1919) from a nationalist newspaper in India. Although all non-official Indians on the Legislative Council voted against the Rowlatt Bills, the government was able to force their passage by using its majority.[92]
-
The Jallianwalla Bagh in 1919, a few months after the massacre which had occurred on 13 April.
[edit] Noncooperation, Khilafat, Simon Commission, Jinnah's fourteen points: 1920s
In 1920, after the British government refused to back down, Gandhi began his campaign of noncooperation, prompting many Indians to return British awards and honours, to resign from civil service, and to again boycott British goods. In addition, Gandhi reorganised the Congress, transforming it into a mass movement and opening its membership to even the poorest Indians. Although Gandhi halted the noncooperation movement in 1922 after the violent incident at Chauri Chaura, the movement revived again, in the mid-1920s.
The visit, in 1928, of the British Simon Commission, charged with instituting constitutional reform in India, resulted in widespread protests throughout the country.[102] Earlier, in 1925, non-violent protests of the Congress had resumed too, this time in Gujarat, and led by Patel, who organised farmers to refuse payment of increased land taxes; the success of this protest, the Bardoli Satyagraha, brought Gandhi back into the fold of active politics.[102]
-
Gandhi besant madras1921.jpg
Mahatma Gandhi with Dr. Annie Besant en route to a meeting in Madras in September, 1921. Earlier, in Madurai, on 21 September 1921, Gandhi had adopted the loin-cloth for the first time as a symbol of his identification with India's poor.
-
Noncooperation khilafat1921.gif
An early 1920s poster advertising a Congress non-cooperation "Public Meeting" and a "Bonfire of Foreign Clothes" in Bombay, and expressing support for the "Karachi Khilafat Conference."
-
-
Bhagat singh noncooperation.jpg
Photograph of the staff and students of the National College, Lahore, founded in 1921 by Lala Lajpat Rai for students preparing for the non-cooperation movement. Standing, fourth from the right, is future revolutionary Bhagat Singh.
At midnight on 31 December 1929, during its annual session in Lahore, the Indian National Congress, under the presidency of Jawaharlal Nehru, raised the flag of independent India for the first time, and afterwards issued a demand for Purna Swaraj (Sanskrit: "complete independence"), which Nehru was to later refer to as "a tryst with destiny." The declaration was drafted by the Congress Working Committee, which included Gandhi, Nehru, Patel, and Chakravarthi Rajagopalachari. Gandhi subsequently led an expanded movement of civil disobedience, culminating in 1930 with the Salt Satyagraha, in which thousands of Indians defied the tax on salt, by marching to the sea and making their own salt by evaporating seawater. Although, many, including Gandhi, were arrested, the British government eventually gave in, and in 1931 Gandhi travelled to London to negotiate new reform at the Round Table Conferences.
In local terms British control rested on the Indian Civil Service, but it faced growing difficulties. Fewer and fewer young men in Britain were interested in joining, and the continuing distrust of Indians resulted in a declining base in terms of quality and quantity. By 1945 Indians were numerically dominant in the ICS and at issue was loyal divided between the Empire and independence.[103] The finances of the Raj depended on land taxes, and these became problematic in the 1930s. Epstein argues that after 1919 it became harder and harder to collect the land revenue. The Raj's suppression of civil disobedience after 1934 temporarily increased the power of the revenue agents but after 1937 they were forced by the new Congress-controlled provincial governments to hand back confiscated land. Again the outbreak of war strengthened them, in the face of the Quit India movement the revenue collectors had to rely on military force and by 1946–47 direct British control was rapidly disappearing in much of the countryside.[104]
In 1935, after the Round Table Conferences, Parliament passed the Government of India Act 1935, which authorised the establishment of independent legislative assemblies in all provinces of British India, the creation of a central government incorporating both the British provinces and the princely states, and the protection of Muslim minorities. The future Constitution of independent India was based on this act.[105] However, it divided the electorate into 19 religious and social categories, e.g., Moslems, Sikhs, Indian Christians, Depressed Classes, Landholders, Commerce and Industry, Europeans, Anglo-Indians, etc., each of which was given separate representation in the Provincial Legislative Assemblies. A voter could cast a vote only for candidates in his own category.
The 1935 Act provided for more autonomy for Indian provinces, with the goal of cooling off nationalist sentiment. The act provided for a national parliament and an executive branch under the purview of the British government, but the rulers of the princely states managed to block its implementation. These states remained under the full control of their hereditary rulers, with no popular government. \To prepare for elections Congress built up its grass roots membership from 473,000 in 1935 to 4.5 million in 1939.[106]
In the 1937 elections Congress won victories in seven of the eleven provinces of British India.[107] Congress governments, with wide powers, were formed in these provinces. The widespread voter support for the Indian National Congress surprised Raj officials, who previously had seen the Congress as a small elitist body.[108]
While the Muslim League was a small elite group in 1927 with only 1300 members, it grew rapidly once it became an organisation that reached out to the masses, reaching 500,000 members in Bengal in 1944, 200,000 in Punjab, and hundreds of thousands elsewhere. Jinnah now was well positioned to negotiate with the British from a position of power.[109] With the outbreak of World War II in 1939, the viceroy, Lord Linlithgow, declared war on India's behalf without consulting Indian leaders, leading the Congress provincial ministries to resign in protest. The Muslim League, in contrast, supported Britain in the war effort and maintained its control of the government in three major provinces, Bengal, Sind and the Punjab.
Jinnah repeatedly warned that Muslims would be unfairly treated in an independent India dominated by the Congress. On 24 March 1940 in Lahore, the League passed the "Lahore Resolution," demanding that, "the areas in which the Muslims are numerically in majority as in the North-Western and Eastern zones of India should be grouped to constitute independent states in which the constituent units shall be autonomous and sovereign." Although there were other important national Muslim politicians such as Congress leader Ab'ul Kalam Azad, and influential regional Muslim politicians such as A. K. Fazlul Huq of the leftist Krishak Praja Party in Bengal, Sikander Hyat Khan of the landlord-dominated Punjab Unionist Party, and Abd al-Ghaffar Khan of the pro-Congress Khudai Khidmatgar (popularly, "red shirts") in the North West Frontier Province, the British, over the next six years, were to increasingly see the League as the main representative of Muslim India.[110]
The Congress was secular and strongly opposed having any religious state. It insisted there was a natural unity to India, and repeatedly blamed the British for "divide and rule" tactics based on prompting Muslims to think of themselves as alien from Hindus. Jinnah rejected the notion of a united India, and emphasised that religious communities were more basic than an artificial nationalism. He proclaimed the Two-Nation Theory,[111] stating at Lahore on 22 March 1940:
- "Islam and Hinduism ... are not religions in the strict sense of the word, but are, in fact, different and distinct social orders, and it is a dream that the Hindus and Muslims can ever evolve a common nationality, and this misconception of one Indian nation has troubles and will lead India to destruction if we fail to revise our notions in time. The Hindus and Muslims belong to two different religious philosophies, social customs, litterateurs. They neither intermarry nor interdine together and, indeed, they belong to two different civilisations which are based mainly on conflicting ideas and conceptions. Their aspect on life and of life are different ... To yoke together two such nations under a single state, one as a numerical minority and the other as a majority, must lead to growing discontent and final destruction of any fabric that may be so built for the government of such a state."[112]
-
-
-
Newly arrived Indian troops on the quayside in Singapore, November 1941
-
While the regular Indian army in 1939 included about 220,000 native troops, it expanded tenfold during the war,[113] and small naval and air force units were created. Over two million Indians volunteered for military service in the British Army. They played a major role in numerous campaigns, especially in the Middle East and North Africa. Casualties were moderate (in terms of the world war), with were 24,000 killed; 64,000 wounded; 12,000 missing (probably dead), and 60,000 captured at Singapore in 1942.[114]
London paid most of the cost of the Indian Army, which had the effect of erasing India's national debt. It ended the war with a surplus of £1,300 million. In addition, heavy British spending on munitions produced in India (such as uniforms, rifles, machine-guns, field artillery, and ammunition) led to a rapid expansion of industrial output, such as textiles (up. 16%), steel (up. 18%), chemicals (up. 30%). Small warships were built, and an aircraft factory opened in Bangalore. The railway system, with 700,000 employees, was taxed to the limit as demand for transportation soared.[115]
The soldiers captured at Singapore had the option of going to Japanese POW camps or joining the Indian National Army, headed by Subhas Chandra Bose but under Japanese control. Most joined the INA and fought in Burma; about 10,000 survived the war.[116]
Bose had been ousted from the Congress in 1939 and turned to Germany and Japan to liberate India by force.[117] With Japanese sponsorship he organised the Indian National Army. From the onset of the war, the Japanese secret service had promoted unrest in South east Asia to destabilise the British war effort,[118] and set up several puppet governments in the captured regions. For India Japan created the Provisional Government of Azad Hind (Free India), presided by Bose.[119] After early Japanese success in Burma, the reinforced British Indian Army in 1945 first halted and then reversed the Japanese U Go offensive, and launched its Burma Campaign.
The British government sent the Cripps' mission in 1942 to secure Indian nationalists' cooperation in the war effort in exchange for a promise of independence as soon as the war ended. Top officials in Britain, most notably Prime Minister Winston Churchill, did not support the Cripps Mission and negotiations with the Congress soon broke down.[120]
Congress in July 1942 launched the "Quit India" movement in demanding the immediate withdrawal of the British from India or face nationwide civil disobedience. On 8 August the Raj arrested all national, provincial and local Congress leaders, holding tens of thousands of them until 1945. The country erupted in violent demonstrations led by students and later by peasant political groups, especially in Eastern United Provinces, Bihar, and western Bengal. The large war-time British Army presence crushed the movement in a little more than six weeks;[121] nonetheless, a portion of the movement formed for a time an underground provisional government on the border with Nepal.[121] In other parts of India, the movement was less spontaneous and the protest less intensive, however it lasted sporadically into the summer of 1943. It did not slow down the British war effort or recruiting for the army.[122]
In January 1946, a number of mutinies broke out in the armed services, starting with that of RAF servicemen frustrated with their slow repatriation to Britain.[123] The mutinies came to a head with mutiny of the Royal Indian Navy in Bombay in February 1946, followed by others in Calcutta, Madras, and Karachi. Although the mutinies were rapidly suppressed, they had the effect of spurring the new Labour government in Britain to action, and leading to the Cabinet Mission to India led by the Secretary of State for India, Lord Pethick Lawrence, and including Sir Stafford Cripps, who had visited four years before.[123]
Also in early 1946, new elections were called in India. Earlier, at the end of the war in 1945, the colonial government had announced the public trial of three senior officers of Bose's defeated Indian National Army who stood accused of treason. Now as the trials began, the Congress leadership, although ambivalent towards the INA, chose to defend the accused officers.[124] The subsequent convictions of the officers, the public outcry against the convictions, and the eventual remission of the sentences, created positive propaganda for the Congress, which only helped in the party's subsequent electoral victories in eight of the eleven provinces.[125] The negotiations between the Congress and the Muslim League, however, stumbled over the issue of the partition. Jinnah proclaimed 16 August 1946, Direct Action Day, with the stated goal of highlighting, peacefully, the demand for a Muslim homeland in British India. The following day Hindu-Muslim riots broke out in Calcutta and quickly spread throughout India. Although the Government of India and the Congress were both shaken by the course of events, in September, a Congress-led interim government was installed, with Jawaharlal Nehru as united India's prime minister.[126]
-
-
ZAFAR4.JPG
Khan Sahib Qazi Zafar Hussain, member of the Muslim rural elite of Punjab, who during the 1946 Punjab Provincial Assembly Election, supported Punjab Muslim League.
-
Dead and wounded after the Direct Action Day which developed into pitched battles as Muslim and Hindu mobs attacked and killed each other across Calcutta in 1946.
Later that year, the Labour government in Britain, its exchequer exhausted by the recently concluded World War II, and conscious that it had neither the mandate at home, the international support, nor the reliability of native forces for continuing to control an increasingly restless India,[127][128] decided to end British rule of India, and in early 1947 Britain announced its intention of transferring power no later than June 1948.
As independence approached, the violence between Hindus and Muslims in the provinces of Punjab and Bengal continued unabated. With the British army unprepared for the potential for increased violence, the new viceroy, Louis Mountbatten, advanced the date for the transfer of power, allowing less than six months for a mutually agreed plan for independence. In June 1947, the nationalist leaders, including Sardar Patel, Nehru and Abul Kalam Azad on behalf of the Congress, Jinnah representing the Muslim League, B. R. Ambedkar representing the Untouchable community, and Master Tara Singh representing the Sikhs, agreed to a partition of the country along religious lines in stark opposition to Gandhi's views. The predominantly Hindu and Sikh areas were assigned to the new India and predominantly Muslim areas to the new nation of Pakistan; the plan included a partition of the Muslim-majority provinces of Punjab and Bengal.
-
Percentage of Hindus by district. Map of British Indian Empire, 1909.
-
Percentage of Muslims by district. Map of British Indian Empire, 1909.
On 14 August 1947, the new Dominion of Pakistan came into being, with Muhammad Ali Jinnah sworn in as its first Governor General in Karachi. The following day, 15 August 1947, India, now a smaller Union of India, became an independent country with official ceremonies taking place in New Delhi, and with Jawaharlal Nehru assuming the office of the prime minister, and the viceroy, Louis Mountbatten, staying on as its first Governor General.
The great majority of Indians remained in place with independence, but in border areas millions of people (Muslim, Sikh, and Hindu) relocated across the newly drawn borders. In Punjab, where the new border lines divided the Sikh regions in half, there was much bloodshed; in Bengal and Bihar, where Gandhi's presence assuaged communal tempers, the violence was more limited. In all, anywhere between 250,000 and 500,000 people on both sides of the new borders, both among the refugee and resident populations of the three faiths, died in the violence.[129]
At independence and since India has maintained such central British institutions as parliamentary government, one-person, one-vote and the rule of law through nonpartisan courts. They retained as well the institutional arrangements of the Raj such as district administration, universities and stock exchanges. One major change was the rejection of separate princely states. Metcalf shows that over the course of two centuries, British intellectuals and Indian specialists made the highest priority bringing peace, unity and good government to India. They offered many competing methods to reach the goal. For example, Cornwallis recommended turning Bengali Zamindar into the sort of English landlords that controlled local affairs in England. Munro proposed to deal directly with the peasants. Sir William Jones and the Orientalists promoted Sanskrit, while Macaulay promoted the English language.[130] Zinkin argues that in the long-run, what matters most about the legacy of the Raj were the British political ideologies which the Indians took over after 1947, especially the belief in unity, democracy, the rule of law and a certain equality beyond caste and creed. Zinkin sees this not just in the Congress party but also among Hindu Nationalists in the Bharatya Janata Party, which specifically emphasises Hindu traditions.[131][132]
"A significant fact which stands out is that those parts of India which have been longest under British rule are the poorest today. Indeed some kind of chart might be drawn up to indicate the close connection between length of British rule and progressive growth of poverty."
In 1780 the conservative British politician Edmund Burke raised the issue of India's position: he vehemently attacked the East India Company, claiming that Warren Hastings and other top officials had ruined the Indian economy and society. Indian historian Rajat Kanta Ray (1998) continues this line of attack, saying the new economy brought by the British in the 18th century was a form of "plunder" and a catastrophe for the traditional economy of Mughal India. Ray accuses the British of depleting the food and money stocks and of imposing high taxes that helped cause the terrible famine of 1770, which killed a third of the people of Bengal.[134]
P. J. Marshall shows that recent scholarship has reinterpreted the view that the prosperity of the formerly benign Mughal rule gave way to poverty and anarchy. Marshall argues the British takeover did not make any sharp break with the past. The British largely delegated control to regional Mughal rulers and sustained a generally prosperous economy for the rest of the 18th century. Marshall notes the British went into partnership with Indian bankers and raised revenue through local tax administrators and kept the old Mughal rates of taxation.[135] Instead of the Indian nationalist account of the British as alien aggressors, seizing power by brute force and impoverishing all of India, Marshall presents the interpretation (supported by many scholars in India and the West) that the British were not in full control but instead were players in what was primarily an Indian play and in which their rise to power depended upon excellent cooperation with Indian elites. Marshall admits that much of his interpretation is still rejected by many historians.[136]
According to Angus Maddison, "The British contributed to public health by introducing smallpox vaccination, establishing Western medicine and training modern doctors, by killing rats, and establishing quarantine procedures. As a result, the death rate fell and the population of India grew by 1947 to more than two-and-a- half times its size in 1757."[137]
| “ |
Population growth worsened the plight of the peasantry. As a result of peace and improved sanitation and health, the Indian population rose from perhaps 100 million in 1700 to 300 million by 1920. While encouraging agricultural productivity, the British also provided economic incentives to have more children to help in the fields. Although a similar population increase occurred in Europe at the same time, the growing numbers could be absorbed by industrialisation or emigration to the Americas and Australia. India enjoyed neither an industrial revolution nor an increase in food growing. Moreover, Indian landlords had a stake in the cash crop system and discouraged innovation. As a result, population numbers far outstripped the amount of available food and land, creating dire poverty and widespread hunger. |
” |
|
—-Craig A. Lockard, Societies, Networks, and Transitions[138]
|
Famines in India (Estimated deaths in millions)
During the British Raj, India experienced some of the worst famines ever recorded, including the Great Famine of 1876–78, in which 6.1 million to 10.3 million people died[151] and the Indian famine of 1899–1900, in which 1.25 to 10 million people died.[152] Recent research, including work by Mike Davis and Amartya Sen,[153] attributes most of the effects of these famines to British policy in India. El Niño event caused the Indian famine of 1876–1878.[154]
Having been criticised for the badly bungled relief effort during the Orissa famine of 1866,[155] British authorities began to discuss famine policy soon afterwards, and, in early 1868, Sir William Muir, Lieutenant-Governor of North Western Provinces, issued a famous order stating that:[156]
"... every District officer would be held personally responsible that no deaths occurred from starvation which could have been avoided by any exertion or arrangement on his part or that of his subordinates."
The first cholera pandemic began in Bengal, then spread across India by 1820. 10,000 British troops and countless Indians died during this pandemic.[157] Deaths in India between 1817 and 1860 are estimated to have exceeded 15 million persons. Another 23 million died between 1865 and 1917.[158] The Third Pandemic of plague started in China in the middle of the 19th century, spreading disease to all inhabited continents and killing 10 million people in India alone.[159] Waldemar Haffkine, who mainly worked in India, was the first microbiologist who developed and used vaccines against cholera and bubonic plague. In 1925, the Plague Laboratory in Bombay was renamed the Haffkine Institute.
Fevers had been considered one of the leading causes of death in India in the 19th century.[160] It was Britain's Sir Ronald Ross working in the Presidency General Hospital in Calcutta who finally proved in 1898 that malaria is transmitted by mosquitoes.[161] In 1881, around 120,000 leprosy patients existed in India. The central government passed the Lepers Act of 1898, which provided legal provision for forcible confinement of leprosy sufferers in India.[162] Under the direction of Mountstuart Elphinstone a program was launched to propagate smallpox vaccination.[163] Mass vaccination in India resulted in a major decline in smallpox mortality by the end of the 19th century.[164] In 1849 nearly 13% of all Calcutta deaths were due to smallpox.[165] Between 1868 and 1907, there were approximately 4.7 million deaths from smallpox.[166]
Sir Robert Grant directed his attention to the expediency of establishing a systematic institution in the Bombay for imparting medical knowledge to the natives.[167] In 1860, Grant Medical College became one of the four recognised colleges for teaching courses leading to degrees (others being Elphinstone College, Deccan College and Government Law College, Mumbai).
- ^ Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd edition, 1989: from Skr. rāj: to reign, rule; cognate with L. rēx, rēg-is, OIr. rī, rīg king (see RICH).
- ^ a b Oxford English Dictionary, 3rd edition (June 2008), on-line edition (September 2011): "spec. In full British Raj. Direct rule in India by the British (1858–1947); this period of dominion."
- ^ Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd edition, 1989. Examples: 1955 Times 25 Aug 9/7 It was effective against the British raj in India, and the conclusion drawn here is that the British knew that they were wrong. 1969 R. MILLAR Kut xv. 288 Sir Stanley Maude had taken command in Mesopotamia, displacing the raj of antique Indian Army commanders. 1975 H. R. ISAACS in H. M. Patel et al. Say not the Struggle Nought Availeth 251 The post-independence régime in all its incarnations since the passing of the British Raj.
- ^ First the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland then, after 1927, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
- ^ Kaul, Chandrika. "From Empire to Independence: The British Raj in India 1858–1947". http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/modern/independence1947_01.shtml. Retrieved 3 March 2011.
- ^ Interpretation Act 1889 (52 & 53 Vict. c. 63), s. 18
- ^ Imperial Gazetteer of India vol. II 1908, p. 463,470 Quote1: "Before passing on to the political history of British India, which properly begins with the Anglo-French Wars in the Carnatic, ... (p.463)" Quote2: "The political history of the British in India begins in the eighteenth century with the French Wars in the Carnatic. (p.471)"
- ^ a b Imperial Gazetteer of India vol. IV 1907, p. 60
- ^ a b c Imperial Gazetteer of India vol. IV 1907, p. 46
- ^ Imperial Gazetteer of India vol. IV 1907, p. 56
- ^ Markovits, Claude (2004). "ch 21: "Princely India (1858–1950)". A history of modern India, 1480–1950. Anthem Press. pp. 386–409. ISBN 978-1-84331-152-2. http://books.google.com/books?id=uzOmy2y0Zh4C.
- ^ Markovits (2004), p. 387
- ^ Robin J. Moore, "Imperial India, 1858–1914"
- ^ Moore, "Imperial India, 1858–1914", p. 424
- ^ Brown 1994, p. 96
- ^ a b c Moore, "Imperial India, 1858–1914", p. 426
- ^ Moore 2001a, p. 426
- ^ Metcalf & Metcalf 2006, p. 104
- ^ Peers 2006, p. 76
- ^ Bayly 1990, p. 195
- ^ Peers 2006, p. 72, Bayly 1990, p. 72
- ^ Michael Maclagan (1963). "Clemency" Canning: Charles John, 1st Earl Canning, Governor-General and Viceroy of India, 1856–1862. Macmillan. p. 212. http://books.google.com/books?id=WUg5AQAAIAAJ. Retrieved 21 February 2012.
- ^ William Ford (1887). John Laird Mair Lawrence, a viceroy of India,. http://books.google.com/books?id=GAYPAAAAQAAJ.
- ^ a b Sir William Wilson Hunter (1876). A life of the Earl of Mayo, fourth viceroy of India. pp. 181–310. http://books.google.com/books?id=uW9CAAAAIAAJ.
- ^ Sarvepalli Gopal (1953). The viceroyalty of Lord Ripon, 1880–1884. Oxford University Press. http://books.google.com/books?id=eKE9AAAAIAAJ. Retrieved 21 February 2012.
- ^ Briton Martin, Jr.. "The Viceroyalty of Lord Dufferin," History Today, (Dec 1960) 10#12 pp. 821–830, and (Jan 1961) 11#1 pp. 56–64
- ^ Sir Alfred Comyn Lyall (1905). The life of the Marquis of Dufferin and Ava. 2. pp. 72–207. http://books.google.com/books?id=rq10VOw8380C&pg=PA95.
- ^ Sir George Forrest (1894). The administration of the Marquis of Lansdowne as Viceroy and Governor-general of India, 1888–1894. http://books.google.com/books?id=PH9CAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA40.
- ^ Ernest Hullo, "India," in Catholic Encyclopedia (1910) vol. 7 online
- ^ a b Manmath Nath Das (1964). India under Morley and Minto: politics behind revolution, repression and reforms. G. Allen and Unwin. http://books.google.com/books?id=V3geAAAAMAAJ. Retrieved 21 February 2012.
- ^ a b Spear 1990, p. 147
- ^ a b c d Spear 1990, pp. 147–148
- ^ European Madness and Gender in Nineteenth-century British India. Social History of Medicine 1996 9(3):357–382.
- ^ Ronald E. Robinson and John Gallagher, Africa and the Victorians: The Climax of Imperialism. (1968)
- ^ David Gilmour, The Ruling Caste: Imperial Lives in the Victorian Raj (2007) pp. 46, 135
- ^ Radhika Singha, "Colonial Law and Infrastructural Power: Reconstructing Community, Locating the Female Subject," Studies in History, (Feb 2003), 19#1 pp. 87–126 online
- ^ Tazeen M. Murshid, "Law and Female Autonomy in Colonial India," Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bangladesh: Humanities, (June 2002), 47#1 pp. 25–42
- ^ Suresh Chandra Ghosh, "Bentinck, Macaulay and the introduction of English education in India," History of Education, (March 1995) 24#1 pp. 17–24
- ^ Percival Spear, "Bentinck and Education," Cambridge Historical Journal (1938) 6#1 pp. 78–101 in JSTOR
- ^ Moore, "Imperial India, 1858–1914," p. 431
- ^ Zareer Masani, Indian Tales of the Raj (1988) p. 89
- ^ B. R. Tomlinson, The Economy of Modern India, 1860–1970 (1996) p. 5
- ^ B. H. Tomlinson, "India and the British Empire, 1880–1935," Indian Economic and Social History Review, (Oct 1975), 12#4 pp. 337–380
- ^ Peter Robb, "British Rule and Indian "Improvement," Economic History Review (Nov 1981), 34#4 pp. 507–523 in JSTOR
- ^ F. H. Brown and B. R. Tomlinson, "Tata, Jamshed Nasarwanji (1839–1904)", in Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (2004) Retrieved 28 Jan 2012 doi:10.1093/ref:odnb/36421
- ^ Vinay Bahl, "The Emergence of Large-Scale Steel Industry in India Under British Colonial Rule, 1880–1907," Indian Economic and Social History Review, (Oct 1994) 31#4 pp. 413–460
- ^ Daniel R. Headrick, The tentacles of progress: technology transfer in the age of imperialism, 1850–1940, (1988) pp. 291–2
- ^ Vinay Bahl, Making of the Indian Working Class: A Case of the Tata Iron & Steel Company, 1880–1946 (1995)
- ^ Claude Markovits, Indian Business and Nationalist Politics 1931–39: The Indigenous Capitalist Class and the Rise of the Congress Party (Cambridge University Press, 2002) pp. 160–66
- ^ I. D. Derbyshire, "Economic Change and the Railways in North India, 1860–1914," Modern Asian Studies, (1987), 21#3 pp. 521–545 in JSTOR
- ^ R.R. Bhandari (2005). Indian Railways: Glorious 150 years. Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Government of India. pp. 1–19. ISBN 81-230-1254-3.
- ^ Thorner, Daniel (2005). "The pattern of railway development in India". In Kerr, Ian J.. Railways in Modern India. New Delhi: Oxford University Press. pp. 80–96. ISBN 0-19-567292-5.
- ^ Hurd, John (2005). "Railways". In Kerr, Ian J.. Railways in Modern India. New Delhi: Oxford University Press. pp. 147–172–96. ISBN 0-19-567292-5.
- ^ Daniel R. Headrick, The tentacles of progress: technology transfer in the age of imperialism, 1850–1940, (1988) pp. 78–79
- ^ Headrick, The tentacles of progress: technology transfer in the age of imperialism, 1850–1940, (1988) pp. 81–82, 291
- ^ Wainwright, A. Marin (1994). Inheritance of Empire. Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group. p. 48. ISBN 978-0-275-94733-0. http://books.google.com/?id=1wERzXx94c8C&pg=PA48.
- ^ R. O. Christensen, "The State and Indian Railway Performance, 1870–1920: Part I, Financial Efficiency and Standards of Service," Journal of Transport History (Sept. 1981) 2#2, pp. 1–15
- ^ (Stein 2001, p. 259)
- ^ Laura Bear, Lines of the nation: Indian Railway workers, bureaucracy, and the intimate historical self (2007) – pp. 25–28
- ^ Arudra Burra, "The Indian Civil Service and the nationalist movement: neutrality, politics and continuity," Commonwealth and Comparative Politics, (Nov 2010), 48#4 pp. 404–432
- ^ B. R. Tomlinson, The economy of modern India, 1860–1970 (1996)
- ^ Judith Brown, Modern India: The Origins of an Asian Democracy (1994) p. 12
- ^ Angus Maddison, The World Economy, pages 109–112, (2001)
- ^ a b c d (Spear 1990, p. 169)
- ^ a b (Spear 1990, p. 170)
- ^ a b (Majumdar, Raychaudhuri & Datta 1950, p. 888)
- ^ (Bose & Jalal 2003, p. 100)
- ^ Helen S. Dyer, Pandita Ramabai: the story of her life (1900) online
- ^ David Ludden, India and South Asia: a short history (2002) p.197
- ^ Stanley A. Wolpert, Tilak and Gokhale: revolution and reform in the making of modern India (1962)
- ^ Michael Edwardes, High Noon of Empire: India under Curzon (1965)
- ^ Moore, "Imperial India, 1858–1914," p. 435
- ^ John R. McLane, "The Decision to Partition Bengal in 1905," Indian Economic and Social History Review, July 1965, 2#3, pp. 221–237
- ^ V. Sankaran Nair, Swadeshi movement: The beginnings of student unrest in South India (1985) excerpt and text search
- ^ Peter Heehs, The lives of Sri Aurobindo (2008) p. 184
- ^ (Bandyopadhyay 2005, p. 260)
- ^ Statistical abstract relating to British India, Issues 40–41 (1906) p. 36
- ^ David Arnold, "The Armed Police and Colonial Rule in South India, 1914–1947," Modern Asian Studies, (Jan 1977) 11#1 pp. 101–125; Arnold, Police Power and Colonial Rule: Madras, 1859–1947 (1986)
- ^ Wolpert, A New History of India, pp. 275–276
- ^ Ludden (2002), pp. 200–201
- ^ (Robb 2004, p. 174)
- ^ a b c d e f Brown 1994, pp. 197–198
- ^ Olympic Games Antwerp. 1920: Official Report.
- ^ a b c Brown 1994, pp. 200–201
- ^ a b c d e Brown 1994, p. 199
- ^ a b c d Brown 1994, pp. 214–215
- ^ a b c d Brown 1994, pp. 210–213
- ^ Brown 1994, pp. 216–217
- ^ Balraj Krishna, India's Bismarck, Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel (2007) ch. 2
- ^ a b c d e f g h Brown 1994, pp. 203–204
- ^ a b c Brown 1994, pp. 201–202
- ^ a b c d Spear 1990, p. 190
- ^ a b c Brown 1994, pp. 195–196
- ^ a b c Stein 2001, p. 304
- ^ Ludden 2002, p. 208
- ^ a b c d e f g h i Brown 1994, pp. 205–207
- ^ Chhabra 2005, p. 2
- ^ Nick Lloyd, The Amritsar Massacre: The Untold Story of One Fateful Day (2011) p. 180
- ^ Derek Sayer, "British Reaction to the Amritsar Massacre 1919–1920," Past & Present, May 1991, Issue 131, pp. 130–164
- ^ Brain Bond, "Amritsar 1919," History Today, Sept 1963, Vol. 13 Issue 10, pp. 666–676
- ^ Srinath Raghaven, "Protecting the Raj: The Army in India and Internal Security, c . 1919–39," Small Wars and Insurgencies, (Fall 2005), 16#3 pp. 253–279 online
- ^ a b (Markovits 2004, pp. 373–374)
- ^ David C. Potter, "Manpower Shortage and the End of Colonialism: The Case of Indian Civil Service," Modern Asian Studies, (Jan 1973) 7#1 pp. 47–73
- ^ Simon Epstein, "District Officers in Decline: The Erosion of British Authority in the Bombay Countryside, 1919 to 1947," Modern Asian Studies, (May 1982) 16#3 pp. 493–518
- ^ (Low 1993, pp. 40, 156)
- ^ Piers Brendon, The Decline and Fall of the British Empire: 1781–1997 (2008) p. 394
- ^ (Low 1993, p. 154)
- ^ Andrew Muldoon, "Politics, Intelligence and Elections in Late Colonial India: Congress and the Raj in 1937," Journal of the Canadian Historical Association (2009), 20#2 pp. 160–188; Muldoon, Empire, politics and the creation of the 1935 India Act: last act of the Raj (2009)
- ^ Ramachandra Guha, India After Gandhi: The History of the World's Largest Democracy (2007) p. 43
- ^ (Robb 2002, p. 190)
- ^ Stephen P. Cohen, The idea of Pakistan (2004) p. 28
- ^ D. N. Panigrahi, India's partition: the story of imperialism in retreat (2004) pp. 151–2
- ^ Recruitment was especially very active in the Punjab province of British India, under the leadership of the then Premier Sir Sikandar Hayat Khan, who believed in cooperating with the British to achieve eventual freedom for the Indian nation. For details of various recrutiment drives by Sir Sikandar between 1939 and 1942, see Omer Tarin and Neal Dando, 'Memoirs of the Second World War: Major Shaukat Hayat Khan' (Critique) in Durbar:Journal of the Indian Military Historical Society, UK, Vol 27, No 3, Autumn 2010, pp. 136–137; and Speech of November 1941, at http://www.harappa.com/mom/may99.htm/ Retrieved 28 April 2012
- ^ Kaushik Roy, "Military Loyalty in the Colonial Context: A Case Study of the Indian Army during World War II," Journal of Military History (2009) 73#2
- ^ John F. Riddick, The history of British India: a chronology (2006) p. 142
- ^ Kaushik Roy, "Axis Satellite Armies of World War II: A Case Study of the Azad Hind Fauj, 1942–45," Indian Historical Review, (Jan 2008) 35#1 pp. 144–172
- ^ (Low 1993, pp. 31–31)
- ^ Lebra 1977, p. 23
- ^ Lebra 1977, p. 31, (Low 1993, pp. 31–31)
- ^ Shyam Ratna Gupta, "New Light On The Cripps Mission," India Quarterly, (Jan 1972), Vol. 28 Issue 1, p. 69–74
- ^ a b (Metcalf & Metcalf 2006, pp. 206–207)
- ^ Bandyopadhyay 2004, pp. 418–420
- ^ a b (Judd 2004, pp. 172–173)
- ^ (Judd 2004, pp. 170–171)
- ^ (Judd 2004, p. 172)
- ^ Sarvepalli Gopal (1976). Jawaharlal Nehru: A Biography. Harvard University Press. p. 362. ISBN 978-0-674-47310-2. http://books.google.com/books?id=Jj-4zmBLXq0C. Retrieved 21 February 2012.
- ^ Hyam 2007, p. 106 Quote:By the end of 1945, he and the Commander-in-Chief of India, General Auckinleck were advising that there was a real threat in 1946 of large scale anti-British Disorder amounting to even a well-organised rising aiming to expel the British by paralysing the administration. Quote: ... it was clear to Attlee that everything depended on the spirit and reliability of the Indian Army:"Provided that they do their duty, armed insurrection in India would not be an insolube problem. If, however, the Indian Army was to go the other way, the picture would be very different ... Quote: ... Thus, Wavell concluded, if the army and the police "failed" Britain would be forced to go. In theory, it might be possible to revive and reinvigorate the services, and rule for another fifteent to trwenty years, but:It is a fallacy to suppose that the solution lies in trying to maintain status quo. We have no longer the resources, nor the necessary prestige or confidence in ourselves.
- ^ Brown 1994, p. 330 Quote: "India had always been a minority interest in British public life; no great body of public opinion now emerged to argue that war-weary and impoverished Britain should send troops and money to hold it against its will in an empire of doubtful value. By late 1946 both Prime Minister and Secretary of State for India recognized that neither international opinion no their own voters would stand for any reassertion of the raj, even if there had been the men, money, and administrative machinery with which to do so." Sarkar 1983, p. 418 Quote: "With a war weary army and people and a ravaged economy, Britain would have had to retreat; the Labour victory only quickened the process somewhat." Metcalf & Metcalf 2006, p. 212 Quote: "More importantly, though victorious in war, Britain had suffered immensely in the struggle. It simply did not possess the manpower or economic resources required to coerce a restive India."
- ^ Ian Talbot and Gurharpal Singh, The Partition of India (2009)
- ^ Thomas R. Metcalf, The New Cambridge History of India: Ideologies of the Raj (1995).
- ^ Maurice Zinkin, "Legacies of the Raj," Asian Affairs, (Oct 1995, 26#3) online
- ^ Y. K. Malik and V. B. Singh, Hindu Nationalists in India: the rise of the Bharatiya Janata Party (Westview Press, 1994)
- ^ Nehru 1946, p. 295
- ^ Rajat Kanta Ray, "Indian Society and the Establishment of British Supremacy, 1765–1818," in The Oxford History of the British Empire: vol. 2, "The Eighteenth Century" ed. by P. J. Marshall, (1998), pp. 508–29
- ^ Professor Ray agrees that the East India Company inherited an onerous taxation system that took one-third of the produce of Indian cultivators.
- ^ P.J. Marshall, "The British in Asia: Trade to Dominion, 1700–1765," in The Oxford History of the British Empire: vol. 2, The Eighteenth Century" ed. by P. J. Marshall, (1998), pp. 487–507
- ^ Angus Maddison (2006). "Class structure and economic growth: India and Pakistan since the Moghuls". Taylor & Francis. p.53. ISBN 0-415-38259-9
- ^ Craig A. Lockard (2010). "Societies, Networks, and Transitions, Volume 3". Cengage Learning. p.610. ISBN 1-4390-8534-X
- ^ Davis, Mike. Late Victorian Holocausts. 1. Verso, 2000. ISBN 978-1-85984-739-8 pg 7
- ^ Davis, Mike. Late Victorian Holocausts. 1. Verso, 2000. ISBN 978-1-85984-739-8 pg 173
- ^ Sen, Amartya. Development as Freedom. ISBN 978-0-385-72027-4 ch 7
- ^ "Ó Gráda, C.: Famine: A Short History". Princeton University Press.
- ^ Hall-Matthews 2008, p. 1
- ^ Imperial Gazetteer of India vol. III 1907, p. 478
- ^ John Pike (24 July 2011). "Cholera- Biological Weapons". Globalsecurity.org. http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/intro/bio_cholera.htm. Retrieved 29 April 2012.
- ^ The 1832 Cholera Epidemic in New York State, By G. William Beardslee
- ^ INFECTIOUS DISEASES: Plague Through History, sciencemag.org
- ^ Malaria – Medical History of British India, National Library of Scotland
- ^ "Biography of Ronald Ross". The Nobel Foundation. http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/1902/ross-bio.html. Retrieved 15 Jun 2007.
- ^ Leprosy – Medical History of British India, National Library of Scotland
- ^ "Other histories of smallpox in South Asia". Smallpoxhistory.ucl.ac.uk. 18 July 2006. http://www.smallpoxhistory.ucl.ac.uk/Other%20Asia/ongoingwork.htm. Retrieved 29 April 2012.
- ^ "Feature Story: Smallpox". Vigyanprasar.gov.in. http://www.vigyanprasar.gov.in/comcom/feature57.htm. Retrieved 29 April 2012.
- ^ Smallpox and Vaccination in British India During the Last Seventy Years, Proceedings of the Royal Society of Medicine, 1945 January; 38(3): 135–140.
- ^ Smallpox – some unknown heroes in smallpox eradication, Indian Journal of Medical Ethics
- ^ "Sir JJ Group of Hospitals". Grantmedicalcollege-jjhospital.org. http://www.grantmedicalcollege-jjhospital.org/history.htm. Retrieved 29 April 2012.
- Bandhu, Deep Chand. History of Indian National Congress (2003) 405pp
- Bandyopadhyay, Sekhar (2004), From Plassey to Partition: A History of Modern India, New Delhi and London: Orient Longmans. Pp. xx, 548., ISBN 978-81-250-2596-2 .
- Bayly, C. A. (1990), Indian Society and the Making of the British Empire (The New Cambridge History of India), Cambridge and London: Cambridge University Press. Pp. 248, ISBN 978-0-521-38650-0 .
- Brown, Judith M. (1994), Modern India: The Origins of an Asian Democracy, Oxford University Press. Pp. xiii, 474, ISBN 978-0-19-873113-9 .
- Bose, Sugata; Jalal, Ayesha (2003), Modern South Asia: History, Culture, Political Economy, Routledge, ISBN 978-0-415-30787-1
- Copland, Ian (2001), India 1885–1947: The Unmaking of an Empire (Seminar Studies in History Series), Harlow and London: Pearson Longmans. Pp. 160, ISBN 978-0-582-38173-5 .
- Coupland, Reginald. India: A Re-Statement (Oxford University Press, 1945), evaluation of the Raj, emphasising government. online edition
- Dodwell H. H., ed. The Cambridge History of India. Volume 6: The Indian Empire 1858–1918. With Chapters on the Development of Administration 1818–1858 (1932) 660pp online edition; also published as vol 5 of the Cambridge History of the British Empire
- James, Lawrence. Raj: The Making and Unmaking of British India (2000)
- Judd, Dennis (2004), The Lion and the Tiger: The Rise and Fall of the British Raj, 1600–1947, Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press. Pp. xiii, 280, ISBN 978-0-19-280358-0 .
- Kumar, Dharma, and Meghnad Desai, eds. The Cambridge Economic History of India, Volume 2: c. 1757–2003 (2010), 1114pp; articles by scholars ISBN 978-81-250-2731-7
- Louis, William Roger, and Judith M. Brown, eds. The Oxford History of the British Empire (5 vol 1999–2001), with numerous articles on the Raj
- Ludden, David. India And South Asia: A Short History (2002)
- Metcalf, Barbara (2006), A Concise History of Modern India (Cambridge Concise Histories), Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press. Pp. xxxiii, 372, ISBN 978-0-521-68225-1 .
- Mansingh, Surjit The A to Z of India (2010), a concise historical encyclopaedia
- Markovits, Claude (ed) (2005), A History of Modern India 1480–1950 (Anthem South Asian Studies), Anthem Press. Pp. 607, ISBN 978-1-84331-152-2, http://www.amazon.com/History-Modern-1480-1950-Anthem-Studies/dp/1843311526/ .
- Moon, Penderel. The British Conquest and Dominion of India (2 vol. 1989) 1235pp; the fullest scholarly history of political and military events from a British top-down perspective;
- Peers, Douglas M. (2006), India under Colonial Rule 1700–1885, Harlow and London: Pearson Longmans. Pp. xvi, 163, ISBN 0-582-31738-X .
- Riddick, John F. The history of British India: a chronology (2006) excerpt and text search, covers 1599–1947
- Riddick, John F. Who Was Who in British India (1998), covers 1599–1947
- Sarkar, Sumit. Modern India, 1885–1947 (2002)
- Smith, Vincent A. (1958) The Oxford History of India (3rd ed.) the Raj section was written by Percival Spear
- Spear, Percival (1990), A History of India, Volume 2, New Delhi and London: Penguin Books. Pp. 298, ISBN 978-0-14-013836-8 . online edition
- Stein, Burton (2001), A History of India, New Delhi and Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pp. xiv, 432, ISBN 978-0-19-565446-2 .
- Thompson, Edward, and G.T. Garratt. Rise and Fulfilment of British Rule in India (1934) 690 pages; scholarly survey, 1599–1933 excerpt and text search
- Wolpert, Stanley (2003), A New History of India, Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press. Pp. 544, ISBN 978-0-19-516678-1 .
- Baker, David, Colonialism in an Indian Hinterland: The Central Provinces, 1820–1920, Delhi and Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pp. xiii, 374, ISBN 978-0-19-563049-7, JSTOR 2059781
- Bayly, C. A. (2000), Empire and Information: Intelligence Gathering and Social Communication in India, 1780–1870 (Cambridge Studies in Indian History and Society), Cambridge and London: Cambridge University Press. Pp. 426, ISBN 978-0-521-66360-1
- Brown, Judith M. Gandhi: Prisoner of Hope (1991), scholarly biography
- Brown; Louis, Wm. Roger, eds. (2001), Oxford History of the British Empire: The Twentieth Century, Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press. Pp. 800, ISBN 978-0-19-924679-3
- Chandavarkar, Rajnarayan (1998), Imperial Power and Popular Politics: Class, Resistance and the State in India, 1850–1950, (Cambridge Studies in Indian History & Society). Cambridge University Press. Pp. 400, ISBN 978-0-521-59692-3 .
- Chatterji, Joya (1993), Bengal Divided: Hindu Communalism and Partition, 1932–1947, Cambridge University Press. Pp. 323, ISBN 978-0-521-52328-8 .
- Copland, Ian (2002), Princes of India in the Endgame of Empire, 1917–1947, (Cambridge Studies in Indian History & Society). Cambridge University Press. Pp. 316, ISBN 978-0-521-89436-4 .
- Manmath Nath Das (1964). India under Morley and Minto: politics behind revolution, repression and reforms. G. Allen and Unwin. http://books.google.com/books?id=V3geAAAAMAAJ.
- Dewey, Clive. Anglo-Indian Attitudes: The Mind of the Indian Civil Service (2003)
- Ewing, Ann. "Administering India: The Indian Civil Service," History Today, June 1982, 32#6 pp. 43–48, covers 1858–1947
- Gilmartin, David. 1988. Empire and Islam: Punjab and the Making of Pakistan. University of California Press. 258 pages. ISBN 978-0-520-06249-8.
- Gilmour, David. The Ruling Caste: Imperial Lives in the Victorian Raj (2007)
- Gilmour, David. Curzon: Imperial Statesman (2006) excerpt and text search
- Sarvepalli Gopal (1 January 1976). Jawaharlal Nehru: A Biography. Harvard U. Press. ISBN 978-0-674-47310-2. http://books.google.com/books?id=Jj-4zmBLXq0C. Retrieved 21 February 2012.
- Sarvepalli Gopal (1953). The viceroyalty of Lord Ripon, 1880–1884. Oxford U. Press. http://books.google.com/books?id=eKE9AAAAIAAJ. Retrieved 21 February 2012.
- Gould, William (2004), Hindu Nationalism and the Language of Politics in Late Colonial India, Cambridge U. Press. Pp. 320 .
- Gopal, Sarvepalli. British Policy in India 1858–1905 (2008)
- Gopal, Sarvepalli. Viceroyalty of Lord Irwin 1926–1931 (1957)
- Jalal, Ayesha (1993), The Sole Spokesman: Jinnah, the Muslim League and the Demand for Pakistan, Cambridge U. Press, 334 pages .
- Kaminsky, Arnold P. The India Office, 1880–1910 (1986) excerpt and text search, focus on officials in London
- Khan, Yasmin (2007), The Great Partition: The Making of India and Pakistan, Yale U. Press, 250 pages, ISBN 978-0-300-12078-3
- Klein, Ira (2000), "Materialism, Mutiny and Modernization in British India", Modern Asian Studies 34 (3): 545–580, http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0026-749X%28200007%2934%3A3%3C545%3AMMAMIB%3E2.0.CO%3B2-I
- Kumar, Deepak. Science and the Raj: A Study of British India (2006)
- Low, D. A. (2002), Britain and Indian Nationalism: The Imprint of Amibiguity 1929–1942, Cambridge University Press. Pp. 374, ISBN 978-0-521-89261-2 .
- Lipsett, Chaldwell. Lord Curzon in India 1898–1903 (1903) excerpt and text search 128pp
- MacMillan, Margaret. Women of the Raj: The Mothers, Wives, and Daughters of the British Empire in India (2007)
- Metcalf, Thomas R. (1991), The Aftermath of Revolt: India, 1857–1870, Riverdale Co. Pub. Pp. 352, ISBN 978-81-85054-99-5
- Metcalf, Thomas R. (1997), Ideologies of the Raj, Cambridge University Press, Pp. 256, ISBN 978-0-521-58937-6
- Moor-Gilbert, Bart. Writing India, 1757–1990: The Literature of British India (1996) on fiction written in English
- Moore, Robin J. "Imperial India, 1858–1914", in Porter, ed. Oxford History of the British Empire: The Nineteenth Century, (2001a), pp. 422–446
- Moore, Robin J. "India in the 1940s", in Robin Winks, ed. Oxford History of the British Empire: Historiography, (2001b), pp. 231–242
- Porter, Andrew, ed. (2001), Oxford History of the British Empire: Nineteenth Century, Oxford University Press. Pp. 800, ISBN 978-0-19-924678-6
- Masood Ashraf Raja. Constructing Pakistan: Foundational Texts and the Rise of Muslim National Identity, 1857–1947, Oxford 2010, ISBN 978-0-19-547811-2
- Ramusack, Barbara (2004), The Indian Princes and their States (The New Cambridge History of India), Cambridge University Press. Pp. 324, ISBN 978-0-521-03989-5
- Read, Anthony, and David Fisher; The Proudest Day: India's Long Road to Independence (W. W. Norton, 1999) online edition; detailed scholarly history of 1940–47
- Venkataramani, M. S.; Shrivastava, B. K. Quit India: The American Response to the
- Shaikh, Farzana (1989), Community and Consensus in Islam: Muslim Representation in Colonial India, 1860—1947, Cambridge University Press. Pp. 272., ISBN 978-0-521-36328-0 .
- Talbot; Singh, Gurharpal Singh, eds. (1999), Region and Partition: Bengal, Punjab and the Partition of the Subcontinent, Oxford University Press. Pp. 420, ISBN 978-0-19-579051-1 .
- Tinker, Hugh (1968), "India in the First World War and after" Journal of Contemporary History, Vol. 3, No. 4, 1918–19: From War to Peace. (Oct., 1968), pp. 89–107, ISSN 0022-0094 .
- Voigt, Johannes. India in The Second World War (1988)
- Wainwright, A. Martin (1993), Inheritance of Empire: Britain, India, and the Balance of Power in Asia, 1938–55, Praeger Publishers. Pp. xvi, 256, ISBN 978-0-275-94733-0 .
- Wolpert, Stanley A. Jinnah of Pakistan (2005)
- Wolpert, Stanley (2007), "India: British Imperial Power 1858–1947 (Indian nationalism and the British response, 1885–1920; Prelude to Independence, 1920–1947)", Encyclopædia Britannica, http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-47042/India .
- Wolpert, Stanley A. Tilak and Gokhale: revolution and reform in the making of modern India (1962) full text online
- Anstey, Vera. The economic development of India (4th ed. 1952), 677pp; thorough scholarly coverage; focus on 20th century down to 1939
- Derbyshire, I. D. (1987), "Economic Change and the Railways in North India, 1860–1914", Population Studies 21 (3): 521–545, JSTOR 312641
- Dutt, Romesh C. The Economic History of India under early British Rule, first published 1902, 2001 edition by Routledge, ISBN 978-0-415-24493-0
- Roy, Tirthankar (2002), "Economic History and Modern India: Redefining the Link", The Journal of Economic Perspectives 16 (3): 109–130, http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0895-3309%28200222%2916%3A3%3C109%3AEHAMIR%3E2.0.CO%3B2-F
- Simmons, Colin (1985), "'De-Industrialization', Industrialization and the Indian Economy, c. 1850–1947", Modern Asian Studies 19 (3): 593–622, http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0026-749X%281985%2919%3A3%3C593%3A%27IATIE%3E2.0.CO%3B2-K
- Tomlinson, B. R. The Economy of Modern India, 1860–1970 (The New Cambridge History of India) (1996) excerpt and text search
- Tomlinson, B. H. "India and the British Empire, 1880–1935," Indian Economic and Social History Review, (Oct 1975), 12#4 pp. 337–380
- Keith, Arthur Berriedale (1912). Responsible government in the dominions. The Clarendon press. http://books.google.com/books?id=mGdDAAAAIAAJ. , major primary sources in 1670pp
- Indian Year-book for 1862: A review of social, intellectual, and religious progress in India and Ceylon (1863), ed. by John Murdoch online edition 250pp; 1861 edition
- The Year-book of the Imperial Institute of the United Kingdom, the colonies and India: a statistical record of the resources and trade of the colonial and Indian possessions of the British Empire (2nd. ed. 1893) 880pp; India = pp. 375–462 online edition
- The Imperial Gazetteer of India (26 vol, 1908–31), highly detailed description of all of India in 1901. online edition
- Statistical abstract relating to British India, from 1895–96 to 1904–05 (London, 1906) full text online, 278pp
- The Cyclopedia of India: biographical, historical, administrative, commercial (1908) complete text online, business history, biographies, illustrations
- The Indian year book: 1914 (1914) snippets
|
|
|
| History |
|
|
|
Philosophies
and ideologies |
|
|
Events and
movements |
|
|
| Organisations |
|
|
Social
reformers |
|
|
Indian
independence
activists |
|
|
| British leaders |
|
|
| Independence |
|
|
