Why was Britain able to establish an Empire in India?
In 1600, the East India Company was originally chartered to trade basic commodities such as silk, tea, salt, opium, and spices from India. Over time, the East India company radically transformed itself from a trading company into an entity that controlled India's massive empire. Through the East India Company, Britain was able to dominate the Indian sub-continent, which includes modern-day India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Burma/Myanmar, and Sri Lanka from the 1750s. The British effectively ruled the sub-continent for almost two centuries, from the 1750s until 1947, with relatively little opposition and unrest.
How was Britain, several thousand miles away and with a much smaller population, able to dominate an entire sub-continent? The reason for this was as a direct result of a unique series of circumstances that allowed Britain to establish its authority over hundreds of millions of people.
When was the East India Company Established?
The British first established trading posts in India to purchase spices, high quality cloth, and other luxury goods that were much in demand in Britain and Europe. They initially came to trade with India, not to conquer it. Trade with India was controlled by a British joint-stock company, The East India Company, that was first created in 1600. The East India Company monopolized the Anglo-Indian trade. The company was owned by private shareholders, including wealthy merchants and aristocrats. Over time, the company earned such spectacular profits from India's trade that it became increasingly influential in Britain's affairs, dominating its foreign policy. Some of its massive profits were spent on creating a private army to defend its interests. The Company had more armed me than Britain's army and was armed with all the latest military tech. They used it to seize territory.
How did the British East India Company Dominate most of India?
By 1760, much of the sub-continent was under the East India Company's direct or indirect influence. The Company was in turn influenced by the British government, who used it to further its interests in India. London effectively let the East Indian Company rule Indian in its name. In the eighteenth century's remaining decades, the British, through the East India Company, expanded their influence. They were resisted by native monarchs such as Tipu Sultan and the powerful Sikh Empire, but the British eventually crushed all resistance.
By 1800, the majority of the Indian subcontinent was under the de-facto control of the East India Company, which was supervised by the British government. It must be remembered that the Company did not seek to conquer India, at least at first. They sought to exploit the subcontinent's wealth and to extend their influence. There was no well thought out policy to dominate India and its rulers. Rather the Company came to rule gradually because of their own strengths and India's weakness.
Why did the Mughal Empire decline?
In 1700, the Indian sub-continent was largely unified under the powerful Mughal dynasty. This Muslim dynasty had conquered much of South Asia and brought peace and prosperity to the land. They were efficient rulers, great patrons of the arts, and their huge army overawed any opposition.
However, by 1750, the Mughal Empire was in decline. Even at the height of their power, they could not directly administer their territories and often delegated authority to appointees. These local rulers were to supply soldiers and equipment to the Mughal army and pay taxes. Over time, these local leaders became increasingly powerful and became independent of the Mughal Court. This weakened the Mughal Empire.
The last truly effective emperor was Aurangzeb, an Islamic fundamentalist who departed from the traditionally tolerant policies of the Mughals, which led to much resentment among the majority Hindus. This was to spark a series of Hindu revolts that further weakened the dynasty. Furthermore, he had engaged in unceasing war, as he tried to conquer the few remaining areas on the subcontinent that were not directly controlled by the Mughals. The cost of his wars was ruinous, and they left the Mughal Empire almost bankrupt. By 1750, the Emperor was only a figurehead in Delhi.
In reality, power was now in the hands of over 500 Hindu or Muslim local rulers, known as Rajahs or Sultans. India was politically fragmented by the time the British started to expand in India, which made it easy for the Company, and later the British government, to divide and rule the subcontinent. If Britain had been faced with the strong government that the Mughals had just 100 years before, it is highly unlikely that they would have been able to establish their empire there.
How did Great Britain control India through Indirect Rule?
Local rulers fought each other endlessly, Muslims and Hindus fought each other and their co-religionists. Warfare was endemic in much of the sub-continent by the early decades of the eighteenth century. Many Indians welcomed the stability of British rule, although they resented the various taxes imposed on them by the foreigners.
The British adopted a clever strategy in India when it came to administering their new territories. They did not directly rule the majority of their new territories, at least at first. They often left the local rulers in place, with all their privileges and wealth. They also did not interfere with the local landowning elites. The British instead often ruled through these elites. They used them to collect taxes and enforce law and order, and in return, they were allowed a measure of autonomy in their local areas. These tactics meant that many local Indian elites, both Hindu and Muslim, accepted British influence.
Were Indians Satisfied with British Rule?
Many Indians proved willing to accept the rule, and they did not try to oppose or rebel against the British presence in their lands, for they recognized that there were some benefits of their rule. For decades, war had been endemic on the sub-continent. In contrast, the areas that came under the British's direct and indirect influence tended to be more stable. They discouraged those local rulers who were under their influence to restrain from attacking their neighbors, and as a result, the level of violence in the country began to decline. This persuaded many to accept the British even though they were aware of their exploitation of their lands. With growing stability, trade and economic activity increased over the years of decline, which ensured that many local elites cooperated with the British.
Furthermore, the British (at first) tolerated the various religions of India. They did not (at first) seek to impose Christianity on the Indians. The British adopted a light-touch approach to government, and they did not interfere with Indian customs and way of life. In fact, many Indians had no direct contact with the British in the early decades of their rule, which meant that there was relatively little popular opposition to them. It was only after the British had full control over India that their rule became heavy-handed, with Christian missionaries coming in large numbers and racist practices like segregation implemented.
Why did India in the 18th Century Lack a National Consciousness?
Nationalism is a modern phenomenon. In the eighteenth century, there was no real national identity in India. The many people in the Indian sub-continent did not regard themselves as Indians. It was only in the twentieth century that the sub-continent people had a sense of belonging to a nation. The majority of people identified with their tribe, clan, ethnic group, caste, or religion. This meant that the peoples of the sub-continent were very divided among themselves. This allowed the British to use Indians to help them run and govern the Empire.
This is best seen in the British policies on the Indian army.
The British East India Company regularly used Indian troops to defend and expand their territory in the sub-continent. Without these Indian troops, it is highly unlikely that the British would ever have established their ascendency in the sub-continent. It was also a factor in the conquest of large areas of Asia and Africa by Europeans and later
Conclusion
Britain, on the face of it, should never have been able to conquer India. It had no direct presence in the country, had a much smaller population, and it was very far away. Indeed, they left the conquest of India to a private company, the East Indian Company. However, [CENSORED]
Comments
Post a Comment