Essays

"British came to India merely as humble traders but either lit. misfortune of Indians or the fortune of the British they became th, ruler and ruled this vast country for centuries very successfully brilliantly."

 It is indeed a Herculean task to sum up the circumstances, reasons. godly favors and other facts which made the traders the despotic rulers.

Some historians opined that British empire   as established almost i; absent mindedness but it will be an unreasonable point of view to concluded as without perspective of circumstantial success, the British could not become the ruler. So keeping in view the reasonably acceptable motivation of all the who established British Raj in India, some justice could be done with the concluding scenario. Let us study the various factors and circumstances prevailed and tin changing motives with bright future perspective which turned the commercial people into successful rulers.

The first factor to be taken into account is that the British by nature t conservative. Their history illustrates that rarely they had put a programme or apian before themselves and then acted upon it. The classic example in English history^ the victory of the Parliament over the king. For more than one-and-half centuries»', British history there was a confused wrangle between the king and the parliament. On can safely say that the parliament came out victorious in the year 1688. Surprisingly, to a foreigner, the justification or theory for this victory of Parliament was provided by John Locke after 1688. This example proves that the English by nature are not giving to Authorize but are guided by pragmatism. In all probability it was pragmatism that j governed the British conquest of India.

The second factor or force was the truth that although the East India Company was established as an autonomous body, its policies were influenced by the homes government. We find that as early as 1784 the home government issued directives to the company relating to its political conquests. That is why it is believed that what the company did in India was considerably influenced by the home government. Further, the policy of the home government underwent periodic changes relating to the overseas possessions or the empire of England.

The third factor was the internal condition of India. After the death of Aurangzeb the Mughul empire started declining rapidly. Within the quarter of century the Mughul emperor became a nominal ruler. The Sikhs, the Rajputs, Marathas, the Nizam and even the provincial viceroys of Oudh and Bengal virtually ] severed themselves from the Mughul empire. Particularly, after the invasion of Nadir Shah there was terrific confusion in the political field. And as historical evidence shows [his confusion could not be exploited to one 'sown ends either by the Rajputs, the Marattias or the Nizam. In other words, there was a political vacuum in India ^ii'    this itself an attraction to the British to establish their rule.

The fourth factor that determined the destiny of India was the singular truth that : me conflict between modernism and medievalism. After the English came out victorious over the other competing European rivals, the fight was a straight away between England and the rulers of India. This fight began in the middle of the eighteenth century. England of the eighteenth century had graduated in the renaissance spirit, a maturity which enabled an individual to regard himself as the maker of his own destiny. Added to this. the benefits of technological knowledge and scientific altitude aided the British in middle of the eighteenth century. One of the concrete manifestations of the assets of science was the 'Industrial Revolution'. The benefits of this revolution, both materially and psychologically, boosted the prestige and confidence of England. Such were the ingredients in the modem outlook of England. On the other hand the picture of India was quite poor. The soldiers of the local rulers in India owed their loyalty to the chiefs and not to the kingdom, that is neither state nor nation for which they fought. The soldiers were mercenary in their nature and had no sense of loyalty to the state or the nation. The economic strength of the ruling dynasties was also precarious. None of them modem State to evolve sound financial organization to sustain themselves in times of long drawn-out conflicts. Nor were they strong enough to organize united resistance, i.e., there was no sense of nationalism or pride mope's own country main cause of the whole picture of illiteracy.

The fifth factor or force that led to the establishment of the British Raj in India was the changing political consciousness of England. In the seventeenth century much thought was not given to the establishment of an empire- The concentration was more on the earning of bullion because mercantilism was the governing principle of the country's economic policy- Although mercantilism was (he guiding factor. England lost in its trade with India. It was only after 1757 (hat the economic drain of India began. And from the mid of the eighteenth century the English policy of mercantilism underwent a transformation and also its policy toward the empire, particularly after (he loss of American colonies in 1783- Imperialism, as a policy, was advocated as late as the second half of the nineteenth century. Therefore, we have to admit that the changes in the political awareness of England also influenced the British conquest of India.

Keeping all the factors in mind and in particular the proverbial nature of the British nation in christening events and achievements after their occurrence, we can examine the motivation behind the conquest of India. In the very early stages the hectors of the Company were very reluctant to involve themselves in any activity beyond trade. The historian of the East India Company, Kaye, states that above all things the London merchants hated the increase of dead stock were frightened of that  growing number of the factories and held forts as abominations- They primarily concentrated on brisk trade and a good dividend. Secondly, it is also interesting to note that the chief cities of Bombay, Madras and Calcutta were acquired by the British by, agreement and not by conquest. Madras was acquired from the Raja of Chandragairi on lease. When the Company's agent, Day, proposed to fortify the place, he was rebuked by the court of directors in England. Calcutta was also acquired in the tom | of the three villages of Sultanate, Calcutta and Govindpur by Job Chamock. Interestingly Ely. J in 1746 one Col. James Mill worked out a plan for the conquest of Bengal and the was submitted neither to the East India Company nor to the British Government, to the Austrian Emperor. Although the directors-in-general discouraged acquisition of territory, some of the steps taken by them were significant. In the Charter is to the East India Company in 1661 it was recognized that the Company was allowed | to establish a municipal corporation for Madras, thereby putting the official stamping the territorial character of the Company.

Even after the victory of the Company over the French and the acquisition the Diwani territories, the directors of the Company and also the House of Common expressed their distrust at the growing political nature from time to time. For example in 1784 the House of Commons adopted the resolution that "to pursue schemes of conquest and expansion of dominion in India is contrary to the wish, the Hanoi,; and policy of the British nation." The court of directors recalled Lord Wellesley; when they found that he was proceeding too fast. It also censured Lord Hastings for his military campaigns and also for expanding the territory.

In spite of these pious professions and warnings the British territory expanded because most of the pro-consuls sent to India took decisions on their( They adopted the policy of expansion as a matter of choice. Added to this, with the court of directors censured some of the pro-consuls they never abandon territories that were acquired by the latter. Surprisingly, even those who oppose expansion, too, were converted to the policy of expansion. For example l Marques of Hastings was appointed as Governor-General, he decided to for policy of peace without any reservation. But he radically changed his opinion few years of stay in India. Also Lord Ellen borough came to India "to tranquility to both banks of Indus", but he proved himself the most imp autocrat in his dealings with Scindhiya and Gwalior. Here the comment of R.C. Mazum is significant: "It would perhaps be unjust and unnatural to regard all governors-general a devoid of sense of justice and morality. The real explainable of the strange phenomenon recorded above evidently lies in the p disintegration of India and the ease with which different parts could be absorb) in the British empire." In this expansion, the year 1818 marks the establishment of the British paramountcy. Here the words of Marques of Hastings are pertinent: "Our object out to be to render the British Government paramount in effect. If not declared, .so we should hold the other states as vassals, in substance though not in name..." And in 1S41 the court of directors laid down that the Company should "persevere in the one clear and direct course of abandoning no just and honorable acquisition of territory or revenue, while all existing claims or rights are at the same lime scrupulously respected."

                Once again here too, we must concede that the British were often startled by the magnitude of their success. A number of leaders prognosticated on the gloomy future. Charles Metcalfe underlined the precariousness of the new dominion and Sir John Malcolm wrote that "in an empire like that of India we are always in danger."

 Nevertheless, the British policy of expansionism became clear by the year 1818. Therefore. \ve can say that although the British policy began without any clear- | cut aim it ended as paramountcy in 1818 and from paramountcy to imperialism, as acknowledged in the proclamation of Queen Victoria as the Empress of India (1876), was a short step forward.

Vocabulary

1. humble—lower in esteem; hurt the pride of. 2. vast—unusually great in size or amount |   or degree or especially extent or scope. 3. herculean—of extreme difficulty; requiring   the strength of a Hercules. 4. despotic—characteristic of an absolute ruler or absolute rule; having absolute sovereignty. 5. perspective—the appearance of things relative to :    one another as determined by their distance from the viewer. 6. pragmatism—the doctrine that practical consequences are the criteria of knowledge and meaning and value. 7. autonomous—existing as an independent entity. 8. underwent—of mental or bodily states or experiences. 9. vacuum—a region empty of matter. 10. mercenary—a person hired lo fight for another country than their own. 11. dynasties—a sequence of powerful leaders in the same family. 12. destiny—fate, an event (or course of events) that will inevitably happen in the future. 13. sustain—lengthen or extend in duration or space. |    14. mercantilism—an economic system (Europe in 18th C) to increase a nation's wealth by government regulation of all of the nation's commercial interests. 15. christening— administer baptism to. 16. reluctant—unwillingness to do something contrary to your custom. 17. dominion—a territorial possession controlled by a ruling state. 18. proclamation—a formal public statement. 19. pious—having or showing or expressing reverence for a deity. 20. devoid—completely lacking. 21. paramount— Having superior power and influence.