India | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1757/1765/1773–1858 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
 Areas ofSouth Asia under Company rule (a) 1774–1804 and (b) 1805–1858 shown in two shades of pink | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Status | Colony andPrincely states | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Capital | Calcutta | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Official languages | 1773–1858: English 1773–1836:Persian 1837–1858: primarilyUrdu, then called, "Hindustani,"[1][2] [3][4][5] but also:Languages of South Asia | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Government | Administered by theEast India Company functioning as aquasi-sovereign power on behalf of theBritish Crown and regulated by theBritish Parliament | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Governor-General | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
• 1774–1785(first Fort William) | Warren Hastings | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
• 1834–1835(first India) | Lord William Bentinck | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
• 1857–1858(last) | Charles Canning | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Historical era | Early modern | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 23 June 1757 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 16 August 1765 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 1767–1799 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 1772–1818 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 1845–1846, 1848–1849 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2 August 1858 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
• Nationalisation of the Company and assumption of direct administration by theBritish crown | 2 August 1858 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Area | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 1858[6] | 1,940,000 km2 (750,000 sq mi) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Currency | Rupee | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Today part of | India Pakistan Bangladesh | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Company rule in India (also known as theCompany Raj,[7] fromHindirāj,lit. 'rule'[8]) refers to regions of theIndian subcontinent under the control of the BritishEast India Company (EIC). The EIC, founded in 1600, established their first trading post in India in 1612, and gradually expanded their presence in the region over the following decades. During theSeven Years' War, the East India Company began a process of rapid expansion in India which resulted in most of the subcontinent falling under their rule by 1857, when theIndian Rebellion of 1857 broke out. After the rebellion was suppressed, theGovernment of India Act 1858 resulted in the EIC's territories in India being administered bythe Crown instead. TheIndia Office managed the EIC's former territories, which became known as theBritish Raj.
The range of dates is taken to have commenced either in 1757 after theBattle of Plassey, when theNawab of BengalSiraj ud-Daulah was defeated and replaced withMir Jafar, who had the support of the East India Company;[9] or in 1765, when the Company was granted thediwani, or the right to collect revenue, inBengal andBihar;[10] or in 1773, when the Company abolished local rule (Nizamat) in Bengal and established a capital inCalcutta, appointed its firstGovernor-General ofFort William,Warren Hastings, and became directly involved in governance.[11] The East India Company significantly expanded its influence throughout the Indian subcontinent after theAnglo-Mysore Wars,Anglo-Maratha Wars, andAnglo-Sikh Wars.[12][13][14]Lord William Bentinck became the first Governor General of India in 1834 under theGovernment of India Act 1833.[15]
TheEnglish East India Company ("the Company") was founded in 1600, asThe Company of Merchants of London Trading into the East Indies. It gained a foothold in India with the establishment of afactory inMasulipatnam on the Eastern coast of India in 1611 and the grant of the rights to establish a factory inSurat in 1612 by the Mughal EmperorJahangir. In 1640, after receiving similar permission from theVijayanagara ruler further south, a second factory was established inMadras on the southeastern coast.Bombay island, not far from Surat, a formerPortuguese outpost gifted toEngland asdowry in the marriage ofCatherine of Braganza toCharles II, was leased by the Company in 1668. Following theAnglo-Mughal War, the Company was allowed byEmperor Aurangzeb to establish a presence on the eastern coast as well; far up that coast, in theGanges Delta, a factory was set up in Calcutta. Since, during this time othercompanies—established by thePortuguese,Dutch,French, andDanish—were similarly expanding in the region, the English Company's unremarkable beginnings oncoastal India offered no clues to what would become a lengthy presence on theIndian subcontinent.
The company's victory underRobert Clive in the 1757 Battle of Plassey and another victory in the 1764Battle of Buxar (in Bihar) consolidated the company's power and forced emperorShah Alam II to appoint it thediwan, or revenue collector, ofBengal, Bihar, andOrissa. The Company thus became the de facto ruler of large areas of thelower Gangetic plain by 1773. It also proceeded by degrees to expand its dominions around Bombay and Madras. TheAnglo-Mysore Wars (1766–1799) and theAnglo-Maratha Wars (1772–1818) left it in control of large areas of India south of theSutlej River. With the defeat of theMarathas, no native power represented a threat for the Company any longer.[16]
The expansion of the company's power chiefly took two forms. The first of these was the outright annexation of Indian states and subsequent direct governance of the underlying regions, which collectively came to compriseBritish India. The annexed regions included theNorth-Western Provinces (comprisingRohilkhand,Gorakhpur, and theDoab) (1801), Delhi (1803), Assam (Ahom Kingdom 1828), andSindh (1843).Punjab,North-West Frontier Province, andKashmir, were annexed after theAnglo-Sikh Wars in 1849-1856 (Period of tenure of Marquess of Dalhousie Governor General); however, Kashmir was immediately sold under theTreaty of Amritsar (1850) to theDogra dynasty ofJammu, and thereby became a princely state. In 1854Berar was annexed, and the state ofOudh two years later.[citation needed]
The second form of asserting power involved treaties in which Indian rulers acknowledged the company'shegemony in return for limited internalautonomy. Since the Company operated under financial constraints, it had to set uppolitical underpinnings for its rule.[17] The most important such support came from thesubsidiary alliances with Indian princes during the first 75 years of Company rule.[17] In the early 19th century, the territories of these princes accounted for two-third of India.[17] When an Indian ruler, who was able to secure his territory, wanted to enter such an alliance, the Company welcomed it as an economical method of indirect rule, which did not involve the economic costs of direct administration or the political costs of gaining the support of alien subjects.[18]
In return, the Company undertook the "defence of these subordinate allies and treated them with traditional respect and marks of honor."[18] Subsidiary alliances created theprincely states, of the Hindumaharajas and the Muslimnawabs. Prominent among the princely states were:Cochin (1791),Jaipur (1794),Travancore (1795),Hyderabad (1798),Mysore (1799),Cis-Sutlej Hill States (1815),Central India Agency (1819),Cutch andGujarat Gaikwad territories (1807–1820),Rajputana (1818),[19] andBahawalpur (1833).
The Governors-General (locum tenens) are not included in this table unless a major event occurred during their tenure.
| Governor-General | Period of Tenure | Events |
|---|---|---|
| Warren Hastings | 20 October 1773 – 1 February 1785 | Great Bengal famine of 1770 (1769–73) Rohilla War (1773–74) First Anglo-Maratha War (1777–83) Chalisa famine (1783–84) Second Anglo-Mysore War (1780–1784) |
| Charles Cornwallis | 12 September 1786 – 28 October 1793 | Cornwallis Code (1793) Permanent Settlement Cochin become semi-protected States under British (1791) Third Anglo-Mysore War (1789–92) Doji bara famine (1791–92) |
| John Shore | 28 October 1793 – March 1798 | East India Company Army re-organised and down-sized. FirstPazhassi Revolt inMalabar(1793–97) Jaipur (1794) &Travancore (1795) come under British protection. Andaman Islands occupied (1796) Company took control of coastal regionCeylon fromDutch (1796). |
| Richard Wellesley | 18 May 1798 – 30 July 1805 | Nizam ofHyderabad becomes first State to signSubsidiary alliance introduced by Wellesley (1798). Fourth Anglo-Mysore War (1798–99) SecondPazhassi Revolt inMalabar (1800–05) Nawab of Oudh cedesGorakhpur andRohilkhand divisions;Allahabad,Fatehpur,Cawnpore,Etawah,Mainpuri,Etah districts; part ofMirzapur; andterai ofKumaun (Ceded Provinces, 1801) Treaty of Bassein signed byPeshwaBaji Rao II acceptingSubsidiary Alliance Battle of Delhi (1803). Second Anglo-Maratha War (1803–05) Remainder ofDoab,Delhi andAgra division, parts ofBundelkhand annexed fromMaratha Empire (1805). Ceded and Conquered Provinces established (1805) Subsidiary alliances created theprincely states, of the Hindu maharajas and the Muslim nawabs. |
| Charles Cornwallis (second term) | 30 July 1805 – 5 October 1805 | Financial strain in East India Company after costly campaigns. Cornwallis reappointed to bring peace, but dies inGhazipur. |
| George Hilario Barlow (locum tenens) | 10 October 1805 – 31 July 1807 | Vellore mutiny (10 July 1806) |
| Lord Minto | 31 July 1807 – 4 October 1813 | Invasion of Java Occupation of Mauritius |
| Marquess of Hastings | 4 October 1813 – 9 January 1823 | Anglo-Nepal War of 1814 Annexation ofKumaon,Garhwal, and eastSikkim. Cis-Sutlej states (1815). Third Anglo-Maratha War (1817–18) States of Rajputana accept Britishsuzerainty (1817). Singapore was founded (1818). Cutch accepts British suzerainty (1818). Gaikwads of Baroda accept British suzerainty (1819). Central India Agency (1819). |
| Lord Amherst | 1 August 1823 – 13 March 1828 | First Anglo–Burmese War (1823–26) Annexation ofAssam, Manipur,Arakan, andTenasserim from Burma |
| William Bentinck | 4 July 1828 – 22 April 1834 | Bengal Sati Regulation, 1829 Thuggee and Dacoity Suppression Acts, 1836–48 Mysore State goes under British administration (1831–81) Bahawalpur accepts British Suzerainty (1833) |
| Governor-General | Period of Tenure | Events |
|---|---|---|
| William Bentinck | 22 April 1834 – 20 March 1835 | Coorg annexed (1834). |
| Lord Auckland | 4 March 1836 – 28 February 1842 | North-Western Provinces established (1836) Post Offices were established (1837) Agra famine of 1837–1838 Aden is captured by Company (1839)[20] First Anglo-Afghan War (1839–1842) Massacre of Elphinstone's army (1842). |
| Lord Ellenborough | 28 February 1842 – June 1844 | First Anglo-Afghan War (1839–42) Annexation of Sindh (1843) Indian Slavery Act, 1843 |
| Henry Hardinge | 23 July 1844 – 12 January 1848 | First Anglo-Sikh War (1845–46) Sikhs cedeJullundur Doab,Hazara, andKashmir to the British underTreaty of Lahore (1846) Sale ofKashmir toGulab Singh ofJammu underTreaty of Amritsar (1846). |
| Marquess of Dalhousie | 12 January 1848 – 28 February 1856 | Second Anglo-Sikh War (1848–1849) Annexation of Punjab andNorth-West Frontier Province (1849–56) Construction begins onIndian Railways (1850) Caste Disabilities Removal Act, 1850 Firsttelegraph line laid in India (1851) Second Anglo-Burmese War (1852–53) Annexation ofLower Burma Ganges Canal opened (1854) Annexation ofSatara (1848),Jaipur andSambalpur (1849),Nagpur andJhansi (1854) underDoctrine of Lapse. Annexation ofBerar (1853) andAwadh (1856). Postage Stamps for India were introduced. (1854). Public Telegram services starts operation (1855). |
| Charles Canning | 28 February 1856 – 1 November 1858 | Hindu Widows' Remarriage Act (25 July 1856) FirstIndian universities founded (January–September 1857) Indian Rebellion of 1857 (10 May 1857 – 20 June 1858) largely inNorth-Western Provinces andOudh Liquidation of theEnglish East India Company underGovernment of India Act 1858[21] |
Until Clive's victory atPlassey, the East India Company territories in India, which consisted largely of thepresidency towns of Calcutta, Madras, and Bombay, were governed by the mostly autonomous—and sporadically unmanageable—town councils, all composed of merchants.[22] The councils barely had enough powers for the effective management of their local affairs, and the ensuing lack of oversight of the overall Company operations in India led to some grave abuses by Company officers or their allies.[22] Clive's victory, and the award of thediwani of the rich region of Bengal, brought India into the public spotlight in Britain.[22] The company's money management practices came to be questioned, especially as it began to post net losses even as some Company servants, the "Nabobs", returned to Britain with large fortunes, which—according to rumours then current—were acquired unscrupulously.[23] By 1772, the Company needed British government loans to stay afloat, and there was fear in London that the company's corrupt practices could soon seep into British business and public life.[24] The rights and duties of the British government with regards the company's new territories also came to be examined.[25] The British parliament then held several inquiries and in 1773, during the premiership ofLord North, enacted theRegulating Act 1773, which established regulations, its long title stated, "for the better Management of the Affairs of theEast India Company, as well inIndia as inEurope".[26]
AlthoughLord North himself wanted the company's territories to be taken over by the British state,[25] he faced determined political opposition from many quarters, including some in theCity of London and theParliament of Great Britain.[24] The result was a compromise in which the Regulating Act—although implying the ultimate sovereignty of theBritish Crown over these new territories—asserted that the company could act as a sovereign power on behalf of the Crown.[27] It could do this while concurrently being subject to oversight and regulation by the British government and parliament.[27] The Court of Directors of the company were required under the act to submit all communications regarding civil, military, and revenue matters in India for scrutiny by the British government.[28] For the governance of the Indian territories, the act asserted the supremacy of thePresidency of Fort William (Bengal) over those ofFort St. George (Madras) andBombay.[29] It also nominated a Governor-General (Warren Hastings) and four councillors for administering the Bengal Presidency (and for overseeing the company's operations in India).[29] "The subordinate Presidencies were forbidden to wage war or make treaties without the previous consent of the Governor-General of Bengal in Council,[30] except in case of imminent necessity. The Governors of these Presidencies were directed in general terms to obey the orders of the Governor-General-in-Council, and to transmit to him intelligence of all important matters."[26] However, the imprecise wording of the Act left it open to be variously interpreted; consequently, the administration in India continued to be hobbled by disunity between the provincial governors, between members of the council, and between the Governor-General himself and his Council.[28] TheRegulating Act also attempted to address the prevalent corruption in India: Company servants were henceforth forbidden to engage in private trade in India or to receive "presents" from Indian nationals.[26]
In 1783, theFox–North coalition tried to reform colonial policy again with a bill introduced byEdmund Burke which would have transferred political power over India from the East India Company to a parliamentary commission. The bill passed theHouse of Commons with the enthusiastic support of Foreign SecretaryCharles James Fox, but was vetoed by theHouse of Lords under pressure from KingGeorge III, who then dismissed the government and formed anew ministry under Fox's rivalWilliam Pitt the Younger.Pitt's India Act left the East India Company in political control of India but established aBoard of Control in England both to supervise the East India Company's affairs and to prevent the company's shareholders from interfering in the governance of India.[31][32] The Board of Control consisted of six members, which included one Secretary of State from the British cabinet, as well as theChancellor of the Exchequer.[28] Around this time, there was also extensive debate in the British Parliament on the issue of landed rights in Bengal, with a consensus developing in support of the view advocated byPhilip Francis, a member of the Bengal council and political adversary of Warren Hastings, that all lands in Bengal should be considered the "estate and inheritance of native land-holders and families".[33]
Mindful of the reports of abuse and corruption in Bengal by Company servants, the India Act itself noted numerous complaints that"'divers Rajahs, Zamindars, Talukdars, and landholders' had been unjustly deprived of 'their lands, jurisdictions, rights, and privileges'".[33] At the same time the company's directors were now leaning towards Francis's view that the land-tax in Bengal should be made fixed and permanent, setting the stage for thePermanent Settlement (see sectionRevenue collection below).[34] The India Act also created in each of the three presidencies a number of administrative and military posts, which included: a Governor and three Councilors, one of which was the Commander in Chief of the Presidency army.[35] Although the supervisory powers of the Governor-General-in-Council in Bengal (over Madras and Bombay) were extended—as they were again in theCharter Act 1793—the subordinate presidencies continued to exercise some autonomy until both the extension of British territories into becoming contiguous and the advent of faster communications in the next century.[36]
Still, the new Governor-General appointed in 1786,Lord Cornwallis, not only had more power than Hastings, but also had the support of a powerful British cabinet minister,Henry Dundas, who, as Secretary of State for theHome Office, was in charge of the overall India policy.[37] From 1784 onwards, the British government had the final word on all major appointments in India; a candidate's suitability for a senior position was often decided by the strength of his political connections rather than that of his administrative ability.[38] Although this practice resulted in many Governor-General nominees being chosen from Britain's conservativelanded gentry, there were some liberals as well, such asLord William Bentinck andLord Dalhousie.[38]
British political opinion was also shaped by the attemptedImpeachment of Warren Hastings; the trial, whose proceedings began in 1788, ended with Hastings' acquittal, in 1795.[39] Although the effort was chiefly coordinated by Edmund Burke, it also drew support from within the British government.[39] Burke accused Hastings not only of corruption, but—appealing to universal standards of justice—also of acting solely upon his own discretion, without concern for law, and of wilfully causing distress to others in India. Hastings' defenders countered that his actions were consistent with Indian customs and traditions.[39] Although Burke's speeches at the trial drew applause and focused attention on India, Hastings was eventually acquitted, due in part to the revival ofnationalism in Britain in the wake of theFrench Revolution. Nonetheless, Burke's effort had the effect of creating a sense of responsibility in British public life for the company's dominion in India.[39]
Soon rumblings appeared amongst merchants in London that the monopoly granted to the East India Company in 1600, intended to facilitate its competition againstDutch andFrench in a distant region, was no longer needed.[36] In response, in theCharter Act 1813, the British Parliament renewed the company's charter but terminated its monopoly except with regard to tea and trade with China, opening India both to private investment and missionaries.[40] With increased British power in India, supervision of Indian affairs by theBritish Crown andParliament increased as well. By the 1820s British nationals could transact business or engage in missionary work under the protection of the Crown in the three presidencies.[40] Finally, under the terms of theSaint Helena Act 1833, the British Parliament revoked the company's monopoly in the China trade and made it an agent for the administration of British India.[40] TheGovernor-General of Bengal was redesignated as theGovernor-General of India. The Governor-General and his executive council were given exclusive legislative powers for the whole of British India.[36] Since the British territories in north India had now extended up to Delhi, the act also sanctioned the creation of aPresidency of Agra.[36] With the annexation ofOudh in 1856, this territory was extended and eventually became theUnited Provinces of Agra and Oudh.[36] In addition, in 1854, a lieutenant-governor was appointed for the region of Bengal, Bihar and Odisha, leaving the Governor-General to concentrate on the governance of India as a whole.[36]
In the remnant of theMughal Empire revenue system existing in pre-1765 Bengal,zamindars, or "land holders", collected revenue on behalf of the Mughal emperor, whose representative, ordiwan, supervised their activities.[41] In this system, the assortment of rights associated with land were not possessed by a "land owner", but rather shared by the several parties with stake in the land, including the peasant cultivator, thezamindar, and the state.[42] Thezamindar served as an intermediary who procured rent from the cultivator, and after withholding a percentage for his own expenses, made available the rest, asrevenue to the state.[42] Under the Mughal system, the land itself belonged to the state and not to thezamindar, who could transfer only his right to collect rent.[42] On being awarded thediwani or overlordship of Bengal following theBattle of Buxar in 1764, theEast India Company found itself short of trained administrators, especially those familiar with local custom and law; tax collection was consequently farmed out. This uncertain foray into land taxation by the company, may have gravely worsened the impact of afamine that struck Bengal in 1769–70, in which between seven and ten million people—or between a quarter and third of the presidency's population—may have died.[43] However, the company provided little relief either through reduced taxation or by relief efforts,[44] and the economic and cultural impact of the famine was felt decades later, even becoming, a century later, the subject ofBankim Chandra Chatterjee's novelAnandamath.[43]
In 1772, under Warren Hastings, the East India Company took over revenue collection directly in theBengal Presidency (then Bengal and Bihar), establishing a Board of Revenue with offices in Calcutta andPatna, and moving the pre-existing Mughal revenue records fromMurshidabad to Calcutta.[45]In 1773, afterOudh ceded the tributary state ofBenaras, the revenue collection system was extended to the territory with a CompanyResident in charge.[45] The following year—with a view to preventing corruption—Companydistrict collectors, who were then responsible for revenue collection for an entire district, were replaced with provincial councils at Patna, Murshidabad, and Calcutta, and with Indian collectors working within each district.[45] The title, "collector", reflected "the centrality of land revenue collection to government in India: it was the government's primary function and it moulded the institutions and patterns of administration".[46]
The Company inherited a revenue collection system from the Mughals in which the heaviest proportion of the tax burden fell on the cultivators, with one-third of the production reserved for imperial entitlement; this pre-colonial system became the Company revenue policy's baseline.[47] However, there was vast variation across India in the methods by which the revenues were collected; with this complication in mind, a Committee of Circuit toured the districts of expanded Bengal Presidency in order to make a five-year settlement, consisting of five-yearly inspections and temporarytax farming.[48] In their overall approach to revenue policy, Company officials were guided by two goals: first, preserving as much as possible the balance of rights and obligations that were traditionally claimed by the farmers who cultivated the land and the various intermediaries who collected tax on the state's behalf and who reserved a cut for themselves; and second, identifying those sectors of the rural economy that would maximise both revenue and security.[47] Although their first revenue settlement turned out to be essentially the same as the more informal pre-existing Mughal one, the company had created a foundation for the growth of both information and bureaucracy.[47]
In 1793, the new Governor-General,Lord Cornwallis, promulgated the permanent settlement of land revenues in the presidency, the first socio-economic regulation in colonial India.[45] By the terms of the settlement rajas and taluqdars were recognised as zamindars and they were asked to collect the rent from the peasants and pay revenue to the company. It was namedpermanent because it fixed the land tax in perpetuity in return for landed property rights forzamindars; it simultaneously defined the nature of land ownership in the presidency, and gave individuals and families separate property rights in occupied land. Since the revenue was fixed in perpetuity, it was fixed at a high level, which in Bengal amounted to £3 million at 1789–90 prices. According to thePermanent Settlement if the zamindars failed to pay the revenue on time, the zamindari right would be taken from them.[49] According to one estimate, this was 20% higher than the revenue demand before 1757.[50] Over the next century, partly as a result of land surveys, court rulings, and property sales, the change was given practical dimension.[51] An influence on the development of this revenue policy were the economic theories then current, which regarded agriculture as the engine of economic development, and consequently stressed the fixing of revenue demands in order to encourage growth.[52] The expectation behind the permanent settlement was that knowledge of a fixed government demand would encourage the zamindars to increase both their average outcrop and the land under cultivation, since they would be able to retain the profits from the increased output; in addition, it was envisaged that land itself would become a marketable form of property that could be purchased, sold, or mortgaged.[47] A feature of this economic rationale was the additional expectation that the zamindars, recognising their own best interest, would not make unreasonable demands on the peasantry.[53]
However, these expectations were not realised in practice, and in many regions of Bengal, the peasants bore the brunt of the increased demand, there being little protection for their traditional rights in the new legislation.[53]Forced labour of the peasants by the zamindars became more prevalent as cash crops were cultivated to meet the Company revenue demands.[47] Although commercialised cultivation was not new to the region, it had now penetrated deeper into village society and made it more vulnerable to market forces.[47] The zamindars themselves were often unable to meet the increased demands that the company had placed on them;[54] consequently, many defaulted, and by one estimate, up to one-third of their lands were auctioned during the first two decades following the permanent settlement. The new owners were oftenBrahmin andKayastha employees of the Company who had a good grasp of the new system, and, in many cases, some had prospered under it.[55]
Since the zamindars were never able to undertake costly improvements to the land envisaged under the Permanent Settlement, some of which required the removal of the existing farmers, they soon became rentiers who lived off the rent from their tenant farmers.[55] In many areas, especially northern Bengal, they had to increasingly share the revenue with intermediate tenure holders, calledjotedars, who supervised farming in the villages.[55] Consequently, unlike the contemporaneousEnclosure movement in Britain, agriculture in Bengal remained the province of the subsistence farming of innumerable smallpaddy fields.[55]
The zamindari system was one of two principal revenue settlements undertaken by the Company in India.[56] Insouthern India,Thomas Munro, who would later become Governor of Madras, promoted theryotwari system or the Munro system, in which the government settled land-revenue directly with the peasant farmers, orryots.[44] It was first tried in small scale by Captain Alexander Read in the areas that were taken over from the wars with Tipu Sultan. Subsequently, developed by Thomas Munro, this system was gradually extended all over South India. This was, in part, a consequence of the turmoil of theAnglo-Mysore Wars, which had prevented the emergence of a class of large landowners; in addition, Munro and others felt thatryotwari was closer to traditional practice in the region and ideologically more progressive, allowing the benefits of Company rule to reach the lowest levels of rural society.[44] At the heart of theryotwari system was a particular theory ofeconomic rent—and based onDavid Ricardo'sLaw of Rent—promoted byutilitarianJames Mill who formulated the Indian revenue policy between 1819 and 1830. "He believed that the government was the ultimate lord of the soil and should not renounce its right to 'rent', i.e. the profit left over on richer soil when wages and other working expenses had been settled."[57] Another keystone of the new system of temporary settlements was the classification of agricultural fields according to soil type and produce, with average rent rates fixed for the period of the settlement.[58] According to Mill, taxation of land rent would promote efficient agriculture and simultaneously prevent the emergence of a "parasitic landlord class".[57] Mill advocatedryotwari settlements which consisted of government measurement and assessment of each plot (valid for 20 or 30 years) and subsequent taxation which was dependent on the fertility of the soil.[57] The taxed amount was nine-tenths of the "rent" in the early 19th century and gradually fell afterwards.[57] However, in spite of the appeal of theryotwari system's abstract principles, class hierarchies in southern Indian villages had not entirely disappeared—for example village headmen continued to hold sway—and peasant cultivators sometimes came to experience revenue demands they could not meet.[59] In the 1850s, a scandal erupted when it was discovered that some Indian revenue agents of the company were using torture to meet the company's revenue demands.[44]
Land revenue settlements constituted a major administrative activity of the various governments in India under Company rule.[17] In all areas other than the Bengal Presidency, land settlement work involved a continually repetitive process of surveying and measuring plots, assessing their quality, and recording landed rights, and constituted a large proportion of the work ofIndian Civil Service officers working for the government.[17] After the Company lost its trading rights, it became the single most important source of government revenue, roughly half of overall revenue in the middle of the 19th century;[17] even so, between the years 1814 and 1859, the government of India ran debts in 33 years.[17] With expanded dominion, even during non-deficit years, there was just enough money to pay the salaries of a threadbare administration, a skeleton police force, and the army.[17]
In 1772, when Hastings became the first Governor-General one of his first undertakings was the rapid expansion of the Presidency's army. Since the available soldiers, orSepoys, from Bengal—many of whom had fought against the British in the Battle of Plassey – were now suspect in British eyes, Hastings recruited farther west from the "major breeding ground" of India's infantry in easternAwadh and the lands aroundBanaras includingBihar.[60] Thehigh caste rural HinduRajputs andBrahmins of this region, known asPurbiyas (Hindi, lit. "easterners"), had been recruited by Mughal Empire armies for two hundred years;[60] the East India Company continued this practice for the next 75 years, with these soldiers comprising up to eighty per cent of the Bengal army. However, in order to avoid any friction within the ranks, the company also took pains to adapt its military practices to their religious requirements. Consequently, these soldiers dined in separate facilities; in addition, overseas service, considered polluting to their caste, was not required of them, and the army soon came to recognise Hindu festivals officially. "This encouragement of high caste ritual status, however, left the government vulnerable to protest, even mutiny, whenever the sepoys detected infringement of their prerogatives."[61]
| East India Company armies after the Re-organisation of 1796[62] | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| British troops | Indian troops | ||
| Bengal Presidency | Madras Presidency | Bombay Presidency | |
| 24,000 | 24,000 | 9,000 | |
| 13,000 | Total Indian troops: 57,000 | ||
| Grand total, British and Indian troops: 70,000 | |||
TheBengal Army was used in military campaigns in other parts of India and abroad: to provide crucial support to a weak Madras army in theThird Anglo-Mysore War in 1791, and also inJava andCeylon.[60] In contrast to the soldiers in the armies of Indian rulers, the Bengal sepoys not only received high pay, but also received it reliably, thanks in great measure to the company's access to the vast land-revenue reserves of Bengal.[60] Soon, bolstered both by the new musket technology and naval support, the Bengal army came to be widely well-regarded.[60] The well-disciplined sepoys attired in red-coats and their British officers began to arouse "a kind of awe in their adversaries. In Maharashtra and in Java, the sepoys were regarded as the embodiment of demonic forces, sometimes of antique warrior heroes. Indian rulers adopted red serge jackets for their own forces and retainers as if to capture their magical qualities."[60]
In 1796, under pressure from the company's board of directors in London, the Indian troops were re-organised and reduced during the tenure ofJohn Shore as Governor-General.[62] However, the closing years of the 18th century saw, with Wellesley's campaigns, a new increase in the army strength. Thus in 1806, at the time of theVellore Mutiny, the combined strength of the three presidencies' armies stood at 154,500, making them one of the largeststanding armies in the world.[63]
| East India Company armies on the eve of theVellore Mutiny of 1806[64] | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Presidencies | British troops | Indian troops | Total |
| Bengal | 7,000 | 57,000 | 64,000 |
| Madras | 11,000 | 53,000 | 64,000 |
| Bombay | 6,500 | 20,000 | 26,500 |
| Total | 24,500 | 130,000 | 154,500 |
As the East India Company expanded its territories, it added irregular "local corps", which were not as well trained as the army.[65] In 1846, after theSecond Anglo-Sikh War, a frontier brigade was raised in theCis-Sutlej Hill States mainly for police work; in addition, in 1849, the "Punjab Irregular Force" was added on the frontier.[65] Two years later, this force consisted of "3 light field batteries, 5 regiments of cavalry, and 5 of infantry".[65] The following year, "a garrison company was added, ... a sixth infantry regiment (formed from the Sind Camel Corps) in 1853, and one mountain battery in 1856".[65] Similarly, a local force was raised after the annexation of Nagpur in 1854, and the "Oudh Irregular Force" was added after Oudh was annexed in 1856.[65] Earlier, as a result of the treaty of 1800, theNizam of Hyderabad had begun to maintain a contingent force of 9,000 horse and 6,000-foot which was commanded by Company officers; in 1853, after a new treaty was negotiated, this force was assigned toBerar and stopped being a part of the Nizam's army.[65]
| East India Company armies on the eve of theIndian rebellion of 1857[66] | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Presidencies | British troops | Indian troops | |||||||
| Cavalry | Artillery | Infantry | Total | Cavalry | Artillery | Sappers & Miners | Infantry | Total | |
| Bengal | 1,366 | 3,063 | 17,003 | 21,432 | 19,288 | 4,734 | 1,497 | 112,052 | 137,571 |
| Madras | 639 | 2,128 | 5,941 | 8,708 | 3,202 | 2,407 | 1,270 | 42,373 | 49,252 |
| Bombay | 681 | 1,578 | 7,101 | 9,360 | 8,433 | 1,997 | 637 | 33,861 | 44,928 |
| Local forces and contingents | 6,796 | 2,118 | 23,640 | 32,554 | |||||
| " " (unclassified) | 7,756 | ||||||||
| Military police | 38,977 | ||||||||
| Total | 2,686 | 6,769 | 30,045 | 39,500 | 37,719 | 11,256 | 3,404 | 211,926 | 311,038 |
| Grand Total, British and Indian troops | 350,538 | ||||||||
In the Indian rebellion of 1857 almost the entire Bengal army, both regular and irregular, revolted.[66] It has been suggested that after the annexation of Oudh by the East India Company in 1856, many sepoys were disquieted both from losing their perquisites, as landed gentry, in the Oudh courts and from the anticipation of any increased land-revenue payments that the annexation might augur.[67] With British victories in wars or with annexation, as the extent of British jurisdiction expanded, the soldiers were now not only expected to serve in less familiar regions (such as in Burma in theAnglo-Burmese Wars in 1856), but also make do without the "foreign service", remuneration that had previously been their due, and this caused resentment in the ranks.[68] The Bombay and Madras armies, and the Hyderabad contingent, however, remained loyal. The Punjab Irregular Force not only did not revolt, it played an active role in suppressing the mutiny.[66] The rebellion led to a complete re-organisation of the Indian army in 1858 in the newBritish Raj.
The reforms initiated after 1784 were designed to create an elite civil service where very talented young Britons would spend their entire careers. Advanced training was promoted especially at theEast India Company College (until 1853).[69] Haileybury emphasised theAnglican religion and morality and trained students in the classicalIndian languages. Many students held toWhiggish,evangelical, andUtilitarian convictions of their duty to represent their nation and to modernise India. At most there were about 600 of these men who managed the Raj's customs service, taxes, justice system, and its general administration.[70][failed verification][71][failed verification] The company's original policy was one of "Orientalism", that is of adjusting to the way of life and customs of the Indian people and not trying to reform them. That changed after 1813, as the forces of reform in the home country, especially evangelical religion, Whiggish political outlook, and Utilitarian philosophy worked together to make the company an agent of Anglicization and modernisation. Christian missionaries became active, but made few converts. The Raj set out to outlawsati (widow-burning) andthuggee (ritual banditry) and upgrade the status of women. Schools would be established in which they would teach theEnglish language. The 1830s and 1840s, however, were not times of prosperity: After its heavy spending on the military, the company had little money to engage in large-scale public works projects or modernisation programs.[72]
.jpg)
After gaining the right to collect revenue in Bengal in 1765, the Company largely ceased importinggold and silver, which it had hitherto used to pay for goods shipped back to Britain.[73]
| Years | Bullion (£) | Average per annum |
|---|---|---|
| 1708/9-1733/4 | 12,189,147 | 420,315 |
| 1734/5-1759/60 | 15,239,115 | 586,119 |
| 1760/1-1765/6 | 842,381 | 140,396 |
| 1766/7-1771/2 | 968,289 | 161,381 |
| 1772/3-1775/6 | 72,911 | 18,227 |
| 1776/7-1784/5 | 156,106 | 17,345 |
| 1785/6-1792/3 | 4,476,207 | 559,525 |
| 1793/4-1809/10 | 8,988,165 | 528,715 |
In addition, as under Mughal Empire rule, land revenue collected in the Bengal Presidency helped finance the company's wars in other parts of India.[73] Consequently, in the period 1760–1800, Bengal'smoney supply was greatly diminished; furthermore, the closing of some local mints and close supervision of the rest, the fixing ofexchange rates, and the standardisation ofcoinage, paradoxically, added to the economic downturn.[73] During the period, 1780–1860, India changed from being an exporter of processed goods for which it received payment inbullion, to being an exporter ofraw materials and a buyer ofmanufactured goods.[73] More specifically, in the 1750s, mostly fine cotton and silk was exported from India to markets in Europe, Asia, and Africa; by the second quarter of the 19th century, raw materials, which chiefly consisted of raw cotton, opium, and indigo, accounted for most of India's exports.[75] Also, from the late 18th century British cotton mill industry began to lobby the government to both tax Indian imports and allow them access to markets in India.[75] Starting in the 1830s, British textiles began to appear in—and soon to inundate—the Indian markets, with the value of the textile imports growing from £5.2 million 1850 to £18.4 million in 1896.[76] TheAmerican Civil War too would have a major impact on India's cotton economy: with the outbreak of the war,American cotton was no longer available toBritish manufacturers; consequently, demand for Indian cotton soared, and the prices soon quadrupled.[77] This led many farmers in India to switch to cultivating cotton as a quick cash crop; however, with the end of the war in 1865, the demand plummeted again, creating another downturn in the agricultural economy.[75]
At this time, the East India Company's trade with China began to grow as well. In the early 19th century, demand forChinese tea had greatly increased in Britain; since the money supply in India was restricted and the company was indisposed to shipping bullion from Britain, it decided uponopium, which had a large underground market inQing China and which was grown in many parts of India, as the most profitable form of payment.[78] However, since the Chinese authorities had banned the importation and consumption of opium, the Company engaged them in theFirst Opium War, and at its conclusion, under theTreaty of Nanjing, gained access to five Chinese ports,Guangzhou,Xiamen,Fuzhou, Shanghai, andNingbo; in addition, Hong Kong was ceded to the British Crown.[78] Towards the end of the second quarter of the 19th century, opium export constituted 40% of India's exports.[79]
Another major, though erratic, export item wasindigo dye, which was extracted fromnatural indigo, and which came to be grown in Bengal and northern Bihar.[80] In 1788, the East India Company offered advances to ten British planters to grow indigo; however, since the new (landed) property rights defined in the Permanent Settlement, did not allow them, as Europeans, to buy agricultural land, they had to in turn offer cash advances to local peasants, and sometimes coerce them, to grow the crop.[81] In early 19th century Europe, blue clothing was favoured as a fashion, and blue uniforms were common in the military; consequently, the demand for the dye was high.[82] The European demand for the dye, however, proved to be unstable, and both creditors and cultivators bore the risk of the market crashes in 1827 and 1847.[80] The peasant discontent in Bengal eventually led to theIndigo rebellion in 1859–60 and to the end of indigo production there.[81][82] In Bihar, however, indigo production continued well into the 20th century; a centre of indigo production there,Champaran district, became an early testing ground, in 1917, forMohandas Karamchand Gandhi's strategy ofnon-violent resistance against theBritish Raj.[83]
Until the British gained control of Bengal in later part of 18th century, the system of justice there was presided over by the Nawab of Bengal himself, who, as the chief law officer,Nawāb Nāzim, attended to cases qualifying for capital punishment in his headquarters,Murshidabad. His deputy, theNaib Nāzim, attended to the slightly less important cases. The ordinary lawsuits belonged to the jurisdiction of a hierarchy of court officials consisting offaujdārs,muhtasils, andkotwāls. In the rural areas, or theMofussil, thezamindars—the rural overlords with the hereditary right to collect rent from peasant farmers—also had the power to administer justice. This they did with little routine oversight, being required to report only their judgments in capital punishment cases to theNawāb.
By the mid-18th century, the East India Company had completed a century and a half presence in India as a trading company, and had a burgeoning presence in the threepresidency towns of Madras, Bombay, and Calcutta. During this time the successiveRoyal Charters had gradually given the East India Company more power to administer justice in these towns. In the charter granted byCharles II in 1683, the company was given the power to establish "courts of judicature" in locations of its choice, each court consisting of a lawyer and two merchants. This right was renewed in the subsequent charters granted byJames II andWilliam III in 1686 and 1698 respectively. In 1726, however, the Court of Directors of the Company felt that more customary justice was necessary for European residents in the presidency towns, and petitioned the King to establishMayor's Courts. The petition was approved and Mayor's courts, each consisting of a Mayor and nine aldermen, and each having the jurisdiction in lawsuitsbetween Europeans, were created in Fort William (Calcutta), Madras, and Bombay. Judgments handed down by a Mayor's Court could be disputed with an appeal to the respective Presidency government and, when the amount disputed was greater thanRs. 4,000, with a further appeal to theKing-in-Council. In 1753, the Mayor's courts were renewed under a revisedletters patent; in addition,Courts of Requests for lawsuits involving amounts less than Rs. 20 were introduced. Both types of courts were regulated by the Court of Directors of the East India Company.
After its victory in theBattle of Buxar, the Company obtained in 1765 theDiwāni of Bengal, the right not only to collect revenue, but also to administer civil justice in Bengal. The administration of criminal justice, theNizāmat orFaujdāri, however, remained with theNawāb, and for criminal cases the prevailingIslamic law remained in place. However, the company's new duties associated with theDiwāni were leased out to the Indian officials who had formerly performed them. This makeshift arrangement continued—with much accompanying disarray—until 1771, when the Court of Directors of the Company decided to obtain for the company the jurisdiction of both criminal and civil cases.
Soon afterwards Warren Hastings arrived in Calcutta as the first Governor-General of the company's Indian dominions and resolved to overhaul the company's organisation and in particular its judicial affairs. In the interior, orMofussil,diwāni adālats, or acivil courts of first instance, were constituted in each district; these courts were presided over by EuropeanZilā judges employed by the company, who were assisted in the interpretation of customary Indian law by Hindupandits and Muslimqazis. For small claims, however, Registrars and Indian commissioners, known asSadr Amīns andMunsifs, were appointed. These in their turn were supervised by provincialcivil courts of appeal constituted for such purpose, each consisting of four British judges. All these were under the authority of theSadr Diwāni Adālat, or theChief Civil Court of Appeals, consisting of the Governor of the Presidency and his Council, assisted by Indian officers.
Similarly for criminal cases, Mofussilnizāmat adālats, or Provincialcourts of criminal judicature, were created in the interior; these again consisted of Indian court officers (pandits andqazis), who were supervised by officials of the company. Also constituted werecourts of circuit withappellate jurisdiction in criminal cases, which were usually presided over by the judges of the civil appellate courts. All these too were under aSadr Nizāmat Adālat or a Chief Court of Criminal Appeal.
Around this time the business affairs of the East India Company began to draw increased scrutiny in theHouse of Commons. After receiving a report by a committee, which condemned the Mayor's Courts,the Crown issued a charter for a new judicial system in theBengal Presidency. TheBritish Parliament consequently enacted theRegulating Act 1773 under which the King-in-Council created aSupreme Court in thePresidency town, i.e.Fort William. The tribunal consisted of one Chief Justice and threepuisne judges; all four judges were to be chosen frombarristers. The Supreme Court supplanted the Mayor's Court; however, it left the Court of Requests in place. Under the charter, the Supreme Court, moreover, had the authority to exercise all types of jurisdiction in the region of Bengal, Bihar, and Odisha, with the only caveat that in situations where the disputed amount was in excess of Rs. 4,000, their judgment could be appealed to thePrivy Council. Both the Act and the charter said nothing about the relation between thejudiciary (Supreme Court) and theexecutive branch (Governor-General); equally, they were silent on theAdālats (bothDiwāni andNizāmat) created by Warren Hastings just the year before. In the new Supreme Court, the civil and criminal cases alike were interpreted and prosecuted accorded toEnglish law; in theSadr Adālats, however, the judges and law-officers had no knowledge of English law, and were required only, by the Governor-General's order, "to proceed according to equity, justice, and good conscience, unlessHindu orMuhammadan law was in point, or some Regulation expressly applied".
There was a good likelihood, therefore, that the Supreme Court and theSadr Adālats would act in opposition to each other and, predictably, many disputes resulted. Hastings' premature attempt to appoint the Chief Justice,Sir Elijah Impey, an old schoolmate fromWinchester, to the bench of theSadr Diwāni Adālat, only complicated the situation further. The appointment had to be annulled in 1781 by a parliamentary intervention with the enactment of theDeclaration Act 1781. The act exempted the Executive Branch from the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. It recognised the independent existence of theSadr Adālats and all subsidiary courts of the company. Furthermore, it headed off future legal turf wars by prohibiting the Supreme Court any jurisdiction in matters of revenue (Diwāni) or Regulations of the Government enacted by the British Parliament. This state of affairs continued until 1797, when a new act of Parliament[which?] extended the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to the province ofBenares (which had since been added to the company's dominions) and "all places for the time being included in Bengal". With the creation of theCeded and Conquered Provinces in 1805, the jurisdiction would extend as far west as Delhi.
In the other two presidencies,Madras andBombay, a similar course of legal changes unfolded; there, however, the Mayor's Courts were first strengthened toRecorder's Courts by adding a legal president to the bench. The Supreme Courts in Madras and Bombay were finally established in 1801 and 1823, respectively. Madras Presidency was also unusual in being the first to rely on village headmen andpanchāyats for cases involving small claims. This judicial system in the three presidencies was to survive the company's rule, the next major change coming only in 1861.
Education of Indians had become a topic of interest among East India Company officials from the outset of the company's rule in Bengal.[84] In the last two decades of the 18th century and the first decade of the nineteenth, Company officials pursued a policy of conciliation towards the native culture of its new dominion, especially in relation to education policy.[84] During the 19th century, the Indian literacy rates were rumoured to be less than half of post independence levels which were 18.33% in 1951. The policy was pursued in the aid of three goals: "to sponsor Indians in their own culture, to advance knowledge of India, and to employ that knowledge in government".[84]
The first goal was supported by some administrators, such as Warren Hastings, who envisaged the company as the successor of a great Empire, and saw the support of vernacular learning as only befitting that role. In 1781, Hastings founded theMadrasa 'Aliya, an institution in Calcutta for the study ofArabic andPersian languages, andIslamic law. A few decades later a related perspective appeared among the governed population, one that was expressed by the conservative Bengali reformer Radhakanta Deb as the "duty of the Rulers of Countries to preserve and Customs and the religions of their subjects".
The second goal was motivated by the concerns among some Company officials about being seen as foreign rulers. They argued that the company should try to win over its subjects by outdoing the region's previous rulers in the support of indigenous learning. Guided by this belief, theBenares Sanskrit College was founded inVaranasi in 1791 during the administration of Lord Cornwallis. The promotion of knowledge of Asia had attracted scholars as well to the company's service. Earlier, in 1784, theAsiatick Society had been founded in Calcutta byWilliam Jones, apuisne judge in the newly established Supreme Court of Bengal. Soon, Jones was to advance hisfamous thesis on the common origin ofIndo-European languages.
The third related goal grew out of the philosophy then current among some Company officials that they would themselves become better administrators if they were better versed in the languages and cultures of India. It led in 1800 to the founding of theCollege of Fort William, in Calcutta byLord Wellesley, the then Governor-General. The college was later to play an important role both in the development ofmodern Indian languages and in theBengal Renaissance. Advocates of these related goals were termed, "Orientalists". The Orientalist group was led byHorace Hayman Wilson. Many leading Company officials, such asThomas Munro andMontstuart Elphinstone, were influenced by the Orientalist ethos and felt that the company's government in India should be responsive to Indian expectations. The Orientalist ethos would prevail in education policy well into the 1820s, and was reflected in the founding of thePoona Sanskrit College inPune in 1821 and theCalcutta Sanskrit College in 1824.
The Orientalists were, however, soon opposed by advocates of an approach that has been termedAnglicist. The Anglicists supported instruction in the English language in order to impart to Indians what they considered modern Western knowledge. Prominent among them wereevangelicals who, after 1813—when the company's territories were opened toChristian missionaries—were interested in spreading Christian belief; they also believed in using theology to promote liberal social reform, such as theabolition of slavery. Among them wasCharles Grant, the Chairman of the East India Company. Grant supported state-sponsored education in India 20 years before a similar system was set up in Britain. Among Grant's close evangelical friends wereWilliam Wilberforce, a prominentabolitionist and member of the British Parliament, andSir John Shore, the Governor-General of India from 1793 to 1797. During this period, many Scottish Presbyterian missionaries also supported the British rulers in their efforts to spread English education and established many reputed colleges likeScottish Church College (1830),Wilson College (1832),Madras Christian College (1837), andElphinstone College (1856).
However, the Anglicists also includedutilitarians, led byJames Mill, who had begun to play an important role in fashioning Company policy. The utilitarians believed in the moral worth of an education that aided the good of society and promoted instruction inuseful knowledge. Suchuseful instruction to Indians had the added consequence of making them more suitable for the company's burgeoning bureaucracy. By the early 1830s, the Anglicists had the upper hand in devising education policy in India. Many utilitarian ideas were employed inThomas Babbington Macaulay'sMinute on Indian Education of 1835. TheMinute, which later aroused great controversy, was to influence education policy in India well into the next century.
Since English was increasingly being employed as the language of instruction, Persian was abolished as the official language of the company's administration and courts by 1837. However, bilingual educations was proving to be popular as well, and some institutions such as the Poona Sanskrit College commenced teaching both Sanskrit and English. Charles Grant's son,Sir Robert Grant, who in 1834 was appointed Governor of theBombay Presidency, played an influential role in the planning of the first medical college in Bombay, which after his unexpected death was namedGrant Medical College when it was established in 1845. During 1852–1853 some citizens of Bombay sent petitions to the British Parliament in support of both establishing and adequately funding university education in India. The petitions resulted in theEducation Dispatch of 1854 sent bySir Charles Wood, thePresident of the Board of Control of the East India Company, the chief official on Indian affairs in the British government, toLord Dalhousie, the then Governor-General of India. The dispatch outlined a broad plan of state-sponsored education for India, which included:[85]
The Department of Public Instruction was in place by 1855. In January 1857, theUniversity of Calcutta was established, followed by theUniversity of Bombay in June 1857, and theUniversity of Madras in September 1857. The University of Bombay, for example, consisted of three affiliated institutions: theElphinstone Institution, theGrant Medical College, and thePoona Sanskrit College. The company's administration also founded high-schoolsen masse in the different provinces and presidencies, and the policy was continued duringCrown rule which commenced in 1858. By 1861, 230,000 students were attending public educational institutions in the four provinces (the three Presidencies andNorth-Western Provinces), of whom 200,000 were in primary schools.[86] Over 5,000 primary schools and 142 secondary schools had been established in these provinces.[86] Earlier, during the Indian rebellion of 1857, some civilian leaders, such as Khan Bhadur Khan ofBareilly, had stressed the threat posed to the populace's religions by the new education programmes begun by the company; however, historical statistics have shown that this was not generally the case. For example, inEtawah district in the then North-Western Provinces (present-dayUttar Pradesh), where during the period 1855–1857, nearly 200 primary, middle-, and high-schools had been opened by the company and tax levied on the population, relative calm prevailed and the schools remained open during the rebellion.[87]
In the first half of the 19th century, the British legislated reforms against what they considered were iniquitous Indian practices. In most cases, the legislation alone was unable to change Indian society sufficiently for it to absorb both the ideal and the ethic underpinning the reform. For example, upper-caste Hindu society in theIndo-Aryan speaking regions of India had long looked askance at the remarriage of widows in order to protect both what it considered was family honour and family property. Even adolescent widows were expected to live a life of austerity and denial.[88][89][90] TheHindu Widows' Remarriage Act, 1856, enacted in the waning years of Company rule, provided legal safeguards against loss of certain forms of inheritance for a remarrying Hindu widow, though not of the inheritance due her from her deceased husband. However, very few widows actually remarried. Some Indian reformers, such asRaja Ram Mohan Roy,Ishwar Chandra Vidyasagar, even offered money to men who would take widows as brides, but these men often deserted their new wives.
Before 1837, the East India Company's dominions in India had no universal publicpostal service, one that was shared by all regions. Althoughcourier services did exist, connecting the more important towns with their respective seats of provincial government (i.e. thePresidency towns of Fort William (Calcutta),Fort St. George (Madras), andBombay), private individuals were, upon payment, only sparingly allowed their use. That situation changed in 1837, when, by Act XVII of that year, a public post, run by the company's Government, was established in the company's territory in India. Post offices were established in the principal towns and postmasters appointed. The postmasters of the Presidency towns oversaw a few provincial post offices in addition to being responsible for the main postal services between the provinces. By contrast, theDistrict collectors (originally, collectors of land-tax) directed the District post offices, including their local postal services. Postal services required payment in cash, to be made in advance, with the amount charged usually varying with weight and distance. For example, the charge of sending a letter from Calcutta to Bombay was onerupee; however, that from Calcutta toAgra was 12annas (or three-quarter of a rupee) for eachtola (three-eighths of an ounce).[91][92]
After the recommendations of the commission appointed in 1850 to evaluate the Indian postal system were received, Act XVII of 1837 was superseded by the Indian Postal Act of 1854. Under its provisions, the entire postal department was headed by aDirector-General, and the duties of aPostmaster-General were set apart from those of a Presidency Postmaster; the former administered the postal system of the larger provinces (such as theBombay Presidency or theNorth-Western Provinces), whereas the latter attended to the less important Provinces (such asAjmer-Merwara and the major Political Agencies such asRajputana). Postage stamps were introduced at this time and the postal rates fixed by weight, dependent no longer also on the distance travelled in the delivery. The lowest inland letter rate was half anna for1⁄4 tola, followed by one anna for1⁄2 tola, and 2 annas for a tola, a great reduction from the rates of 17 years before. TheIndian Post Office delivered letters, newspapers, postcards, book packets, and parcels. These deliveries grew steadily in number; by 1861 (three years after the end of Company rule), a total of 889 post offices had been opened, and almost 43 million letters and over four and a half million newspapers were being delivered annually.[93]
Before the advent ofelectric telegraphy, the word "telegraph" had been used forsemaphore signalling. During the period 1820–1830, the East India Company's Government in India seriously considered constructing signalling towers ("telegraph" towers), each a hundred feet high and separated from the next by eight miles, along the entire distance from Calcutta to Bombay. Although such towers were built in Bengal and Bihar, the India-wide semaphore network never took off. By mid-century, electric telegraphy had become viable, and hand signalling obsolete.
W. B. O'Shaughnessy, a professor of chemistry in theCalcutta Medical College, received permission in 1851 to conduct a trial run for a telegraph service from Calcutta toDiamond Harbour along the riverHooghly. Four telegraph offices, mainly for shipping-related business, were also opened along the river that year. The telegraph receiver used in the trial was agalvanoscope of O'Shaughnessy's design and manufactured in India. When the experiment was deemed to be a success a year later, the Governor-General of India,Lord Dalhousie, sought permission from the Court of Directors of the company for the construction oftelegraph lines from "Calcutta to Agra, Agra to Bombay, Agra to Peshawar, and Bombay to Madras, extending in all over 3,050 miles and including forty-one offices". The permission was soon granted; by February 1855 all the proposed telegraph lines had been constructed and were being used to send paid messages. O'Shaughnessy's instrument was used all over India until early 1857, when it was supplanted by theMorse instrument. By 1857, the telegraph network had expanded to 4,555 miles of lines and sixty two offices, and had reached as far as thehill station ofOotacamund in theNilgiri Hills and the port ofCalicut on the southwest coast of India. During the Indian rebellion of 1857, more than seven hundred miles of telegraph lines were destroyed by the rebel forces, mainly in theNorth-Western Provinces. The East India Company was nevertheless able to use the remaining intact lines to warn many outposts of impending disturbances. The political value of the new technology was, thus, driven home to the company, and, in the following year, not only were the destroyed lines rebuilt, but the network was expanded further by 2,000 miles.[94]
O'Shaughnessy's experimental set-up of 1851–52 consisted of both overhead and underground lines; the latter included underwater ones that crossed two rivers, theHooghly and theHaldi. The overhead line was constructed by welding uninsulated iron rods,13+1⁄2 feet long and 3/8 inch wide, end to end. These lines, which weighed 1,250 pounds per mile, were held aloft by fifteen-foot lengths of bamboo, planted into the ground at equal intervals—200 to the mile—and covered with a layer each of coal tar andpitch for insulation. The underwater cables had been manufactured in England and consisted ofcopper wire covered withgutta-percha. Furthermore, in order to protect the cables from draggingship anchors, the cables were attached to the links of a7⁄8-inch-thick (22 mm) chain cable. An underwater cable of length 2,070 yards was laid across the Hooghly river atDiamond Harbour, and another, 1,400 yards long, was laid across the Haldi atKedgeree.
Work on the long lines from Calcutta toPeshawar (through Agra), Agra to Bombay, and Bombay to Madras began in 1853. The conducting material chosen for these lines was now lighter, and the support stronger. The wood used for the support consisted of teak, sal,fir,ironwood, or blackwood (Terminalia elata), and was either fashioned into whole posts, or used in attachments to ironscrew-piles ormasonry columns. Some sections had uniformly strong support; one such was the 322-mile Bombay-Madras line, which was supported bygraniteobelisks sixteen feet high. Other sections had less secure support, consisting, in some cases, of sections oftoddy palm, insulated with pieces of sal wood fastened to their tops. Some of the conducting wires or rods were insulated, the insulating material being manufactured in either India or England; other stretches of wire remained uninsulated. By 1856, iron tubes had begun to be employed to provide support, and would see increased use in the second half of the 19th century all over India.
The first Telegraph Act for India was Parliament's Act XXXIV of 1854. When the public telegramme service was first set up in 1855, the charge was fixed at one rupee for every sixteen words (including the address) for every 400 miles of transmission. The charges were doubled for telegrammes sent between 6PM and 6AM. These rates would remain fixed until 1882. In the year 1860–61, two years after the end of Company rule, India had 11,093 miles of telegraph lines and 145 telegraph offices. That year telegrams totallingRs. 500,000 in value were sent by the public, the working expense of theIndian Telegraph Department was Rs. 1.4 million, and thecapital expenditure until the end of the year totalled Rs. 6.5 million.
The firstinter-city railway service in England, theStockton and Darlington Railway, had been established in 1825;[95] in the following decade other inter-city railways were rapidly constructed between cities in England. In 1845, the Court of Directors of the East India Company, forwarded to the Governor-General of India,Lord Dalhousie, a number of applications they had received from private contractors in England for the construction of a wide-ranging railway network in India, and requested a feasibility report. They added that, in their view, the enterprise would be profitable only if large sums of money could be raised for the construction. The Court was concerned that in addition to the usual difficulties encountered in the construction of this new form of transportation, India might present some unique problems, among which they counted floods, tropical storms in coastal areas, damage by "insects and luxuriant tropical vegetation", and the difficulty of finding qualified technicians at a reasonable cost. It was suggested, therefore, that three experimental lines be constructed and their performance evaluated.[96]
Contracts were awarded in 1849 to theEast Indian Railway Company to construct a 120-mile railway fromHowrah-Calcutta toRaniganj; to theGreat Indian Peninsular Railway Company for a service from Bombay toKalyan, thirty miles away; and to theMadras Railway Company for a line fromMadras city toArkonam, a distance of some thirty nine miles. Although construction began first, in 1849, on the East Indian Railways line, with an outlay of £1 million, it was the first-leg of the Bombay-Kalyan line—a 21-mile stretch from Bombay toThane—that, in 1853, was the first to be completed (see picture below).
The feasibility of a train network in India was comprehensively discussed by Lord Dalhousie in hisRailway minute of 1853. The Governor-General vigorously advocated the quick and widespread introduction of railways in India, pointing to their political, social, and economic advantages. He recommended that a network oftrunk lines be first constructed connecting the inland regions of each presidency with its chief port as well as each presidency with several others. His recommended trunk lines included the following ones: (i) from Calcutta, in theBengal Presidency, on the eastern coast toLahore in the north-western region of thePunjab, annexed just three years before; (ii) fromAgra in north-central India (in, what was still being calledNorth-Western Provinces) toBombay city on the western coast; (iii) from Bombay toMadras city on the southeastern coast; and (iv) from Madras to the southwestern Malabar coast (see map above). The proposal was soon accepted by the Court of Directors.
During this time work had been proceeding on the experimental lines as well. The first leg of the East Indian Railway line, abroad gauge railway, from Howrah toPandua, was opened in 1854 (see picture of locomotive below), and the entire line up to Raniganj would become functional by the time of the Indian rebellion of 1857. The Great Indian Peninsular Railway was permitted to extend its experimental line toPoona. This extension required planning for the steep rise in theBor Ghat valley in theWestern Ghats, a section15+3⁄4 miles long with an ascent of 1,831 feet. Construction began in 1856 and was completed in 1863, and, in the end, the line required a total of twenty five tunnels and fifteen miles of gradients (inclines) of 1 in 50 or steeper, the most extreme being theBor Ghat Incline, a distance of1+3⁄4 miles at a gradient of 1 in 37 (see picture above).
Each of the three companies (and later five others that were given contracts in 1859) was ajoint stock companydomiciled in England with itsfinancial capital raised inpounds sterling. Each company was guaranteed a 5 per cent return on its capital outlay and, in addition, a share of half the profits. Although the Government of India had nocapital expenditure other than the provision of the underlying land free of charge, it had the onus of continuing to provide the 5 percent return in the event of net loss, and soon all anticipation of profits would fall by the wayside as the outlays would mount.
The technology of railway construction was still new and there was norailway engineering expertise in India; consequently, all engineers had to be brought in from England. These engineers were unfamiliar not only with the language and culture of India, but also with the physical aspect of the land itself and its concomitant engineering requirements. Moreover, never before had such a large and complex construction project been undertaken in India, and no pool of semi-skilled labour was already organised to aid the engineers. The work, therefore, proceeded in fits and starts—many practical trials followed by a final construction that was undertaken with great caution and care—producing an outcome that was later criticised as being "built to a standard which was far in excess of the needs to the time". The Government of India's administrators, moreover, made up in their attention to the fine details of expenditure and management what they lacked in professional expertise. The resulting delays soon led to the appointment of a Committee of theHouse of Commons in 1857–58 to investigate the matter. However, by the time the Committee concluded that all parties needed to honour the spirit rather than the letter of the contracts, Company rule in India had ended.
Although, railway construction had barely begun in the last years of this rule, its foundations had been laid, and it would proceed apace for much of the next half century. By the turn of the 20th century, India would have over 28,000 miles of railways connecting most interior regions to the ports of Karachi, Bombay, Madras, Calcutta,Chittagong, andRangoon, and together they would constitute the fourth-largest railway network in the world.[97]
The first irrigation works undertaken during East India Company's rule were begun in 1817. Consisting chiefly of extensions or reinforcements of previous Indian works, these projects were limited to the plains north of Delhi and to the river deltas of theMadras Presidency.[99] A small dam in theKaveri river delta, built some 1,500 years before, and known as theGrandAnicut, was one such indigenous work in South India. In 1835–36, SirArthur Cotton successfully reinforced the dam, and his success prompted more irrigation projects on the river. A little farther north, on theTungabhadra river, the 16th centuryVijayanagara ruler,Krishna Deva Raya, had constructed severalweirs; these too would be extended under British administration.[citation needed]
In plains above Delhi, the mid-14th centurySultan of Delhi,Firoz Shah Tughlaq, had constructed the 150-mile longWestern Jamna Canal. Taking off from the right bank of theJamna river early in its course, the canal irrigated the Sultan's territories in theHissar region ofEastern Punjab. By the mid-16th century, however, the fine sediment carried by theHimalayan river had gradually choked the canal. Desilted and reopened several decades later byAkbar the Great, theWestern Jamna Canal was itself tapped by Akbar's grandsonShah Jahan, and some of its water was diverted to Delhi. During this time another canal was cut off the river. The 129-mileEastern Jamna Canal orDoab Canal, which took off from the left bank of the Jamna, also high in its course, presented a qualitatively different difficulty. Since it was cut through steeply sloped land, its flow became difficult to control, and it was never to function efficiently. With the decline of Mughal Empire power in the 18th century, both canals fell into disrepair and closed.[citation needed] The Western Jamna Canal was repaired byBritish Army engineers and it reopened in 1820. The Doab Canal was reopened in 1830; its considerable renovation involved raising the embankment by an average height of 9 ft. for some 40 miles.[100]
Farther west in thePunjab region, the 130-mile longHasli Canal, had been constructed by previous rulers.[99] Taking off from theRavi river and supplying water to the cities ofLahore andAmritsar, this left-bank canal was extended by the British in theBari Doab Canal works during 1850–1857. The Punjab region, moreover, had much rudimentary irrigation by "inundation canals". Consisting of open cuts on the side of a river and involving no regulation, the inundation canals had been used in both the Punjab andSindh for many centuries. The energetic administrations of theSikh andPathan governors of Mughal West Punjab had ensured that many such canals inMultan,Dera Ghazi Khan, andMuzaffargarh were still working efficiently at the time of the Britishannexation of the Punjab in 1849–1856 (period of tenure of the Marquess of Dalhousie Governor General).[citation needed]
The first new British work—with no Indian antecedents—was theGanges Canal built between 1842 and 1854.[101]Contemplated first by Col.John Russell Colvin in 1836, it did not at first elicit much enthusiasm from its eventual architect SirProby Thomas Cautley, who balked at idea of cutting a canal through extensive low-lying land in order to reach the drier upland destination. However, after theAgra famine of 1837–38, during which the East India Company's administration spentRs. 2,300,000 on famine relief, the idea of a canal became more attractive to the company's budget-conscious Court of Directors.[citation needed] In 1839, theGovernor General of India,Lord Auckland, with the Court's assent, granted funds to Cautley for a full survey of the swath of land that underlay and fringed the projected course of the canal. The Court of Directors, moreover, considerably enlarged the scope of the projected canal, which, in consequence of the severity and geographical extent of the famine, they now deemed to be the entireDoab region.[102]
The enthusiasm, however, proved to be short lived. Auckland's successor as Governor General,Lord Ellenborough, appeared less receptive to large-scale public works, and for the duration of his tenure, withheld major funds for the project.[103] Only in 1844, when a new Governor-General,Lord Hardinge, was appointed, did official enthusiasm and funds return to the Ganges canal project. Although the intervening impasse, had seemingly affected Cautely's health and required him to return to Britain in 1845 for recuperation, his European sojourn gave him an opportunity to study contemporary hydraulic works in Great Britain and Italy. By the time of his return to India even more supportive men were at the helm, both in theNorth-Western Provinces, withJames Thomason as Lt. Governor, and inBritish India withLord Dalhousie as Governor-General.[104] Canal construction, under Cautley's supervision, now went into full swing. A 350-mile long canal, with another 300 miles of branch lines, eventually stretched between the headworks inHardwar and—after splitting into two branches at Nanau nearAligarh—the confluence with the Ganges atCawnpore (now Kanpur) and with the Jumna (nowYamuna)mainstem atEtawah. The Ganges Canal, which required a total capital outlay of £2.15 million, was officially opened in 1854 by Lord Dalhousie.[citation needed] According to historian Ian Stone:
It was the largest canal ever attempted in the world, five times greater in its length than all the main irrigating lines ofLombardy and Egypt put together, and longer by a third than even the largest USA navigation canal, thePennsylvania Canal.[105]
| Colonial India | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
 Map of colonialIndia, distributed by theBritish Information Services (1942) | ||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
"Hindoostanee" was instrumental for Company rule in that Gilchrist's grammar books, dictionaries, and translations helped to standardize Urdu as an official language for lower level judicial courts and revenue administration in 1837, replacing Persian.
In 1837 Urdu was formally adopted by the British, in place of Persian, as the language of interaction between the Government (which from then on conducted its affairs in English) and the local population.
It was only in 1837 that Persian lost its position as official language of India to Urdu and to English in the higher levels of administration.
Paradoxically, many British also clung to Persian. Indeed, the so-called Urdu that replaced Persian as the court language after 1837 was recognisably Persian as far as its nouns were concerned. The courtly heritage of Persian was also to exercise a constraint on the British cultivation of Hindustani/Urdu.
The earlier grammars and dictionaries made it possible for the British government to replace Persian with vernacular languages at the lower levels of judicial and revenue administration in 1837, that is, to standardize and index terminology for official use and provide for its translation to the language of the ultimate ruling authority, English. For such purposes Hindustani was equated with Urdu, as opposed to any geographically defined dialect of Hindi and was given official status through large parts of north India. Written in the Persian script with a largely Persian and, via Persian, an Arabic vocabulary, Urdu stood at the shortest distance from the previous situation and was easily attainable by the same personnel.
Therefore, by the time of the Mauryan Empire the position of women in mainstream Indo-Aryan society seems to have deteriorated. Customs such as child marriage and dowry were becoming entrenched; and a young women's purpose in life was to provide sons for the male lineage into which she married. To quote the Arthashāstra: 'wives are there for having sons'. Practices such as female infanticide and the neglect of young girls were also developing at this time. Further, due to the increasingly hierarchical nature of the society, marriage was becoming a mere institution for childbearing and the formalization of relationships between groups. In turn, this may have contributed to the growth of increasingly instrumental attitudes towards women and girls (who moved home at marriage). It is important to note that, in all likelihood, these developments did not affect people living in large parts of the subcontinent—such as those in the south, and tribal communities inhabiting the forested hill and plateau areas of central and eastern India. That said, these deleterious features have continued to blight Indo-Aryan speaking areas of the subcontinent until the present day
Darkness can be said to have pervaded one aspect of society during the inter-imperial centuries: the degradation of women. InHinduism, the monastic tradition was not institutionalized as it was in the heterodoxies ofBuddhism andJainism, where it was considered the only true path to spiritual liberation. (p. 88) Instead, Hindu men of upper castes, passed through several stages of life: that of initiate, when those of thetwice-born castes received the sacred thread; that of student, when the upper castes studied theVedas; that of the married man, when they became householders; ... Since the Hindu man was enjoined to take a wife at the appropriate period of life, the roles and nature of women presented some difficulty. Unlike the monastic ascetic, the Hindu man was exhorted to have sons, and could not altogether avoid either women or sexuality. ...Manu approved of child brides, considering a girl of eight suitable for a man of twenty-four, and one of twelve appropriate for a man of thirty.(p. 89) If there was no dowry, or if the groom's family paid that of the bride, the marriage was ranked lower. In this ranking lay the seeds of the curse of dowry that has become a major social problem in modern India, among all castes, classes and even religions. (p. 90) ... the widow's head was shaved, she was expected to sleep on the ground, eat one meal a day, do the most menial tasks, wear only the plainest, meanest garments, and no ornaments. She was excluded from all festivals and celebrations, since she was considered inauspicious to all but her own children. This penitential life was enjoined because the widow could never quite escape the suspicion that she was in some way responsible for her husband's premature demise. ... The positions taken and the practices discussed by Manu and the other commentators and writers ofDharmashastra are not quaint relics of the distant past, but alive and recurrent in India today – as the attempts to revive the custom of sati (widow immolation) in recent decades has shown.
The legal rights, as well as the ideal images, of women were increasingly circumscribed during the Gupta era. The Laws of Manu, compiled from about 200 to 400 C.E., came to be the most prominent evidence that this era was not necessarily a golden age for women. Through a combination of legal injunctions and moral prescriptions, women were firmly tied to the patriarchal family, ... Thus the Laws of Manu severely reduced the property rights of women, recommended a significant difference in ages between husband and wife and the relatively early marriage of women, and banned widow remarriage. Manu's preoccupation with chastity reflected possibly a growing concern for the maintenance of inheritance rights in the male line, a fear of women undermining the increasingly rigid caste divisions, and a growing emphasis on male asceticism as a higher spiritual calling.
This article incorporates text from this source, which is in thepublic domain. Country Studies.Federal Research Division.
