Additional Topics to Be Covered

East India Company and Carnatic War

The Carnatic Wars (also spelled Karnatic Wars) were a series of military conflicts in the middle of the 18th century on the Indian subcontinent. The conflicts involved numerous nominally independent rulers and their vassals, struggles for succession and territory, and included a diplomatic and military struggle between the French East India Company and the British East India Company. They were mainly fought on the territories in India which were dominated by the Mughal Empire up to the Godavari delta. As a result of these military contests, the British East India Company established its dominance among the European trading companies within India. The French company was pushed to a corner and was confined primarily to Pondicherry. The British company's dominance eventually led to control by the United Kingdom over most of India and the establishment of the British Raj.

In the 18th century the coastal Carnatic region was a dependency of Hyderabad, the main remaining remnant of the Mughal Empire. Three Carnatic Wars were fought between 1744 and 1763.

First Carnatic War

Carnatic was ruled by Nawab Dost Ali, despite being under the legal purview of the Nizam of Hyderabad. Dost Ali's death sparked a power struggle between his son-in-law Chanda Sahib and the Nizam's nominee, Anwaruddin Muhammed Khan. The British enlisted the help of Anwaruddin Muhammed Khan to oust the French under Joseph François Dupleix and capable Sepoys such as Hyder Ali from Madras.

Muzaffar Jung allied himself with Chanda Sahib, who aspired to become the next Nawab of the Carnatic, together they planned to gather their prowess in the south with the help of the Nawab of Kadapa and ally themselves with the French, their plans turned out to be successful in the short term.

After the British initially captured a few French ships, the French called for backup from as far afield as Mauritius, and on 21 September 1746, they captured the British city of Madras. Among the prisoners of war was Robert Clive.

With the termination of the War of Austrian Succession in Europe, the First Carnatic War also came to an end. In the Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle (1748), Madras was given back to the British in exchange for the French fortress of Louisbourg in North America, which the British had captured.

Second Carnatic War (1749–1754)

After the death of the Nizam-ul-Mulk in 1748, the Nizam of Hyderabad, a civil war for succession, now known as the Second Carnatic War, broke out in the south between Mir Ahmad Ali Khan (Nasir Jung), the son of the Nizam-ul-Mulk, and Hidayat Muhi ud-Din Sa'adu'llah Khan (Muzaffar Jung), the grandson of Nizam-ul-Mulk.

This opened a window of opportunity for Chanda Sahib, who wanted to become Nawab of Arcot. He joined the cause of Muzaffar Jung and began to conspire against the Nawab Anwaruddin Muhammed Khan in Arcot.The French allied with Chanda Sahib and Muzaffar Jung to bring them into power in their respective states. But soon the British also intervened. To offset the French influence, they began supporting Nasir Jung and Muhammad Ali Khan Walajah (son of the deposed Nawab Anwaruddin Muhammed Khan of Arcot). Initially, the French succeeded in both states in defeating and murdering their opponents and placing their supporters on thrones in 1749. In 1751, however, Robert Clive led British troops to capture Arcot. Clive's success led to additional victories for the British and their Nizam and Arcot allies. The war ended with the Treaty of Pondicherry, signed in 1754. Muhammad Ali Khan Walajah was recognized as the Nawab of Arcot. The French leader Dupleix was asked to return to France.

Third Carnatic War (1757–1763)

The outbreak in 1756 of the Seven Years' War in Europe resulted in renewed conflict between French and British forces in India. The Third Carnatic War spread beyond southern India and into Bengal where British forces captured the French settlement of Chandernagore (now Chandannagar) in 1757. However, the war was decided in the south, as British commander Sir Eyre Coote decisively defeated the French under the Comte de Lally at the Battle of Wandiwash in 1760. After Wandiwash, the French capital of Pondicherry fell to the British in 1761. The war concluded with the signing of the 1763 Treaty of Paris, which returned Chandernagore and Pondicherry to France, and allowed the French to have "factories" (trading posts) in India but forbade French traders from administering them.

Anglo – Mysore War

The First Anglo-Mysore War (1766-1769) saw Hyder Ali gain some measure of success against the British but suffering heavy defeats at the hands of the Marathas. Hyder Ali's alliance with the Nizam of Hyderabad against the British too was a failure owing to defeats of their combined power against the British and later the spread of mutual suspicion between the two Islamic powers. The Kingdom of Mysore regained some of its lost lands and had to relinquish many territories to the south of Mysore to the British.

The Second Anglo-Mysore War (1780-1784) witnessed bloodier battles with fortunes fluctuating between the contesting powers. This war saw the rise of Sir Eyre Coote, the British commander who repeatedly defeated Hyder Ali and his superior army. The war ended in 1784 with the Treaty of Mangalore, at which both sides agreed to restore the others' lands to the status quo ante bellum.

Hyder Ali died in 1786 and Mysore was taken over by his son Tipu Sultan. Tipu, who gained control of Mysore after his father's death in December 1782, maintained an implacable hatred of the British, and declared not long after signing the 1784 treaty that he intended to continue battle with them given the opportunity.[1] He refused to free British prisoners taken during the war, one of the conditions of the treaty. Tipu Sultan further strengthened his alliances with Ali Raja Bibi Junumabe II and the Muslim

Mappila community, thus expanding the Sultanate of Mysore's sphere of influence. British General Earl Cornwallis became the Governor-General of India and Commander-in-Chief for the British East India Company in 1786. While he formally abrogated agreements with the Mahrattas and Hyderabad that violated terms of the 1784 treaty,[1] he sought informally to gain their support and that of the Nizam of Hyderabad, or at least their neutrality, in the event of conflict with Mysore.

In 1788 the company gained control of the Circar of Guntur, the southernmost of the Northern Circars, which the company had acquired under earlier agreements with the Nizam. In exchange, the company provided the Nizam with two battalions of company troops.Both of these acts placed British troops closer to Mysore, but also guaranteed the Nizam would support the British in the event of conflict.

The kingdom of Travancore had been a target of Tipu for acquisition or conquest since the end of the previous war. Indirect attempts to take over the kingdom had failed in 1788, and Campbell, the Madras president at the time, had warned Tipu that an attack on Travancore would be treated as a declaration of war on the company. The rajah of Travancore also angered Tipu by extending fortifications along the border with Mysore into territory claimed by Mysore, and by purchasing from the Dutch East India Company two forts in the Kingdom of Cochin, a state paying tribute to Tipu Sultan.

Immediately after his coronation as the ruler of the Sultanate of Mysore, Tipu Sultan sought the investiture of the Mughal Emperor Shah Alam II. Tipu Sultan began to establish contacts with other Muslim rulers of that period to gain momentum against British. In the year 1787, the bold and ambitious Tipu Sultan sent an embassy to the Ottoman capital of Istanbul, to the Ottoman Sultan Abdul Hamid I requesting urgent assistance against the British East India Company and had proposed an offensive and defensive consortium. Tipu Sultan then sought an alliance with Napoleon and particularly the French, supposedly aimed at achieving this goal by driving his main rivals, the British East India Company out of the subcontinent.

In the Third Anglo-Mysore War (1789-1792), Tipu Sultan, the ruler of Mysore and an ally of France, invaded the nearby state of Travancore in 1789, which was a British ally. The resultant war lasted three years and was a resounding defeat for Mysore. The war ended after the 1792 siege of Seringapatam and the signing of the Treaty of Seringapatam according to which Tipu had to surrender half of his kingdom to the British East India Company and its allies.

The Fourth Anglo-Mysore War (1799) saw the defeat of Tipu Sultan and further reductions in Mysorean territory. Mysore's alliance with the French was seen as a threat to the East India Company and Mysore was attacked from all four sides. Tipu's troops were outnumbered 4:1 in this war. Mysore had only 35,000 soldiers, whereas the British commanded 60,000 troops. The Nizam of Hyderabad and the Marathas launched an invasion from the north. The British won a decisive victory at the Battle of Seringapatam in 1799. Tipu was killed during the defence of the city. Much of the remaining Mysorean territory was annexed by the British, the Nizam and the Marathas.

Reasons behind French Failure in India

After the Carnatic war English forces had now dominated the Carnatic and after battle of Plassey they have acquired Bengal which proved for them great source of revenue and strategic coloney. At the end of October, the able General Coote arrived in Madras with his troops and the English resumed the offensive. Coote followed up his success by reducing the minor French possessions in the Carnatic. In

course of three months the French lost everything in the Carnatic save Jinji and Pondicherry. The English then laid siege to Pondicherry (May, 1760).

Reduced to the last desperate strait, Lally hoped to retrieve the French position by an alliance with Hyder ‘Ali, then at the helm of affairs in Mysore. The idea was well conceived but led to no practical result. Hyder sent a contingent to the aid of the French, but the allies were not able to concert any military plan which held out a chance of success against the English. Thereupon Hyder’s contingent returned to Mysore, leaving Lally to his fate. In 1761, Pondicherry made an unconditional surrender. The French thus lost all their possessions in India, but these were restored to them by the Treaty of Paris (1763).The causes of the failure of Lally axe not far to seek and some of them have been discussed in connection with the failure of Dupleix. Both suffered equally from the insufficient supply from home, which was due partly to the defective Organisation of the Company as a minor branch of the Government, and partly to the failure of the home Authorities to recognize the importance of securing political power in India. The inferiority of the French at sea and the discord between commanders of land and sea forces were again common handicaps to both, though they operated more decisively against the French in the Third Carnatic War. In addition, the possession of the military and financial resources to Bengal gave the English a decisive advantage over Lally. From this secure base they could send a constant supply of men and money to Madras, and create a diversion in its favour by attacking the French in the Northern Sarkars. Although it was not fully recognised at the time, the position of the English in Bengal made the struggle of the French a hopeless one from the very beginning of the Third Carnatic War. The battle of Plassey may be truly said to have decided the fate of the French in India.The character and conduct of Lally also contributed not a little to the disastrous results. He had military skill and displayed bravery and energy but possessed neither the tact of a leader nor the wisdom of a statesmen. Ms end was tragic indeed. He was detained in England as a prisoner of war for two years, and allowed to return to France in 1763 at the end of the Seven Years’ War. But a worse fate awaited him there. He was imprisoned in the Bastille for more than two years and afterwards executed with ignominy and insult.In spite of Lally’s undoubted failings and shortcomings, it is only fair to remember that the difficulties confronting him were really insurmountable, and that the French had no real chance of success against the English even under the best of leaders. There is a large element of truth in the remark of a historian, that “neither Alexander the- Great nor Napoleon could have won the empire of India by starting from Pondicherry as a base and contending with the power which held Bengal and command of the sea “.

Maratha Wars

The Anglo-Maratha Wars were three wars fought in India between the Maratha Empire and the British East India Company:

First Anglo-Maratha War (1777-1783)

The First Anglo-Maratha War (1775–1782) was the first of three Anglo-Maratha wars fought between the British East India Company and Maratha Empire in India. The war began with the Treaty of Surat and ended with the Treaty of Salbai.

After the death of Madhavrao Peshwa in 1772, his brother Narayanrao became Peshwa of the Maratha Empire. However, Raghunathrao, Narayanrao's uncle, had his nephew assassinated in a palace conspiracy that resulted in Raghunathrao becoming Peshwa, although he was not the legal heir.

Narayanrao's widow, Gangabai, gave birth to a posthumous son, who was legal heir to the throne. The newborn infant was named 'Sawai' Madhavrao (Sawai means “One and a Quarter”). Twelve Maratha chiefs, led by Nana Phadnavis directed an effort to name the infant as the new Peshwa and rule under him as regents.

Raghunathrao, unwilling to give up his position of power, sought help from the British at Bombay and signed the Treaty of Surat on 1775. According to the treaty, Raghunathrao ceded the territories of Salsette and Bassein to the British, along with part of the revenues from Surat and Bharuch districts. In return, the British promised to provide Raghunathrao with 2,500 soldiers.

The British Calcutta Council condemned the Treaty of Surat, sending army to Pune to annul it and make a new treaty with the regency. The Treaty of Purandhar (1 March 1776) annulled that of Surat, Raghunathrao was pensioned and his cause abandoned, but the revenues of Salsette and Broach districts were retained by the British. The Bombay government rejected this new treaty and gave refuge to Raghunathrao. In 1777 Nana Phadnavis violated the treaty with the Calcutta Council by granting the French a port on the west coast. The British replied by sending a force towards Pune. However British were made signed the Treaty of Wadgaon that forced the Bombay government to relinquish all territories acquired by the Bombay office of the East India Company since 1773.

In February 1781 the British beat Shinde to the town of Sipri. After the defeat, Shinde proposed a new treaty between the Peshwa and the British that would recognize the young Madhavrao as the Peshwa and grant Raghunathrao a pension. This treaty, known as the Treaty of Salbai, was signed on 17 May 1782, and was ratified by Hastings in June 1782 and by Phadnis in February 1783. The treaty also returned to Shinde all his territories west of the Yamuna. It also guaranteed peace between the two sides for twenty years, thus ending the war.

Second Anglo-Maratha War (1803-1805)

In October 1802, Peshwa Baji Rao II (Raghunath Rao’s Son) was defeated by Yashwantrao Holkar, ruler of Indore, at the Battle of Poona. He fled to British protection, and in December the same year concluded the Treaty of Bassein with the British East India Company, ceding territory for the maintenance of a subsidiary force and agreeing to treaty with no other power. The British also had to check the French influence in India.

The Treaty of Bassein (Now called Vasai) was a pact signed on December 31, 1802 between the British East India Company and Baji Rao II, the Maratha peshwa of Pune (Poona) in India after the Battle of Poona. The treaty was a decisive step in the dissolution of the Maratha Confederacy, which led to the East India Company's usurpation of the peshwa's territories in western India in 1818.

On May 13, 1803, Baji Rao II was restored to Peshwarship under the protection of the East India Company and the leading Maratha state had thus become a client of the British. The treaty led to

expansion of the sway and influence of the East India Company over the Indian subcontinent. However, the treaty was not acceptable to all Marathas chieftains, and resulted in the Second Anglo-Maratha War.

This act on the part of the Peshwa, their nominal overlord, horrified and disgusted the Maratha chieftains; in particular, the Holker of Indore, the Scindia rulers of Gwalior and the Bhonsle rulers of Nagpur and Berar – main chieftains of Maratha confederation - contested the agreement. In 1803, Scindia forces lost to Lord Gerard Lake at Delhi and to Lord Arthur Wellesley at Assaye. A few months later in November, Lake defeated another Scindia force at Laswari, followed by Wellesley's victory over Bhonsle forces at Argaon (now Adgaon) on 29 November. On 30 December 1803, the Daulat Scindia signed the Treaty of Surji-Anjangaon with the British after the Battle of Assaye and Battle of Argaon and ceded to the British Ganges-Jumna Doab, the Delhi-Agra region, parts of Bundelkhand, Broach, some districts of Gujarat, fort of Ahmmadnagar.

The Holkar rulers of Indore belatedly joined the fray and compelled the British to make peace. Yashwantrao Holkar, however began hostilities with the British by securing the alliance of the Raja of Bharatpur. By the Treaty of Rajghat, Holkar got back most of his territories. The Holkar Maharajas retained control and overlordship over much of Rajasthan.

Third Anglo-Maratha War , also known as the Pindari War (1817-1818)

The Third Anglo-Maratha War (1817–1818) was the final and decisive conflict between the British East India Company and the Maratha Empire in India. The war left the Company in control of most of India. It began with an invasion of Maratha territory by 110,400 British East India Company troops, [1] the largest such British controlled force amassed in India. The troops were led by the Governor General Hastings. The operations began with action against Pindaris, a band of Muslim and Maratha robbers from central India.The Peshwa Baji Rao II's forces, followed by those of Mudhoji II Bhonsle of Nagpur and Malharrao Holkar III of Indore, rose against the British company. Pressure and diplomacy convinced the fourth major Maratha leader, Daulatrao Shinde of Gwalior, to remain neutral even though he lost control of Rajasthan. British victories were swift, resulting in the breakup of the Maratha Empire and the loss of Maratha independence. The Peshwa was defeated in the battles of Khadki and Koregaon and he was forced to flee. Several minor battles were fought by the Peshwa's forces to prevent his capture.

The Peshwa was eventually captured and placed on a small estate at Bithur, near Kanpur. Most of his territory was annexed and became part of the Bombay Presidency. The Maharaja of Satara was restored as the ruler of his territory as a princely state. In 1848 this territory was also annexed by the Bombay Presidency under the doctrine of lapse policy of Lord Dalhousie. Bhonsle was defeated in the battle of Sitabaldi and Holkar in the battle of Mahidpur. The northern portion of Bhonsle's dominions in and around Nagpur, together with the Peshwa's territories in Bundelkhand, were annexed by British India as the Saugor and Nerbudda Territories. The defeat of the Bhonsle and Holkar also resulted in the acquisition of the Maratha kingdoms of Nagpur and Indore by the British. Along with Gwalior from Shinde and Jhansi from the Peshwa, all of these territories became princely states acknowledging British control. The British proficiency in Indian war-making was demonstrated through their rapid victories in Khadki, Sitabardi, Mahidpur, Koregaon, and Satara.

Colonial Economy: Tribute System

With the English East India Company rising to such heights of power, considerable interest began to build up back in Britain. The English East India Company not only had the complete monopoly over trade in the east, they also controlled an economically important region. Rival trading companies wished to enter the region, as did manufacturers keen to flood the market with their goods. The British government was also keen to tap into the considerable wealth of India, to further develop the British economy. Soon such forces began questioning the company's rule and its policies. The English East India Company was after all a trading company headquartered in Britain, that was holding political power over millions of people in a foreign country. Important issues on what the relation between the British government and the English East India Company should be came up. In 1767 the British parliament passed a law which required the English East India Company to pay an annual tribute of 470,000 thousands a year to the government of Britain. Meanwhile due to the corruption of its employees the English East India Company began making substantial losses and soon requested the government for a loan. The British parliament used this situation to negotiate greater power in the administration of India.

Structure of the British raj up to 1857 (including the Acts of 1773 and 1784 and administrative organisation)

East India Company Act 1773

By the Regulating Act of 1773 (later known as the East India Company Act 1772), the Parliament of Great Britain imposed a series of administrative and economic reforms and by doing so clearly established its sovereignty and ultimate control over the Company. The Act recognised the Company's political functions and clearly established that the "acquisition of sovereignty by the subjects of the Crown is on behalf of the Crown and not in its own right."

Despite stiff resistance from the East India lobby in parliament and from the Company's shareholders the Act was passed. It introduced substantial governmental control and allowed the land to be formally under the control of the Crown, but leased to the Company at £40,000 (Also known as tribute) for two years. Under this provision governor of Bengal Warren Hastings became the first Governor-General of Bengal, and had administrative powers over all of British India. It provided that his nomination, though made by a court of directors, should in future be subject to the approval of a Council of Four appointed by the Crown - namely Lt. General Sir John Clavering, The Honourable Sir George Monson, Sir Richard Barwell, and Sir Philip Francis.[21]

Hastings was entrusted with the power of peace and war. British judicial personnel would also be sent to India to administer the British legal system. The Governor General and the council would have complete legislative powers. The company was allowed to maintain its virtual monopoly over trade in exchange for the biennial sum and was obligated to export a minimum quantity of goods yearly to Britain. The costs of administration were to be met by the company. These provisions were initially welcomed by the Company, but with the annual burden of the payment to be met, its finances continued steadily to decline.

East India Company Act 1784 (Pitt's India Act)

The East India Company Act 1784 (Pitt's India Act) had two key aspects:

Relationship to the British government: the bill differentiated the East India Company's political functions from its commercial activities. In political matters the East India Company was subordinated to the British government directly. To accomplish this, the Act created a Board of Commissioners for the Affairs of India, usually referred to as the Board of Control. The members of the Board were the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Secretary of State, and four Privy Councillors, nominated by the King. The act specified that the Secretary of State "shall preside at, and be President of the said Board".

Internal Administration of British India: the bill laid the foundation for the centralised and bureaucratic British administration of India which would reach its peak at the beginning of the 20th century during the governor-generalship of Curzon.

Pitt's Act was deemed a failure because it quickly became apparent that the boundaries between government control and the company's powers were nebulous and highly subjective. The government felt obliged to respond to humanitarian calls for better treatment of local peoples in British-occupied territories. Edmund Burke, a former East India Company shareholder and diplomat, was moved to address the situation and introduced a new Regulating Bill in 1783. The bill was defeated amid lobbying by company loyalists and accusations of nepotism in the bill's recommendations for the appointment of councillors.

Act of 1786

The Act of 1786 (26 Geo. 3 c. 16) enacted the demand of Earl Cornwallis that the powers of the Governor-General be enlarged to empower him, in special cases, to override the majority of his Council and act on his own special responsibility. The Act enabled the offices of the Governor-General and the Commander-in-Chief to be jointly held by the same official.

This Act clearly demarcated borders between the Crown and the Company. After this point, the Company functioned as a regularised subsidiary of the Crown, with greater accountability for its actions and reached a stable stage of expansion and consolidation. Having temporarily achieved a state of truce with the Crown, the Company continued to expand its influence to nearby territories through threats and coercive actions. By the middle of the 19th century, the Company's rule extended across most of India, Burma, Malaya, Singapore, and British Hong Kong, and a fifth of the world's population was under its trading influence.

East India Company Act 1793 (Charter Act)

The Company's charter was renewed for a further 20 years by the Charter Act of 1793. In contrast with the legislative proposals of the past two decades, the 1793 Act was not a particularly controversial measure, and made only minimal changes to the system of government in India and to British oversight of the Company's activities.

East India Company Act 1813 (Charter Act)

The aggressive policies of Lord Wellesley and the Marquis of Hastings led to the Company gaining control of all India, except for the Punjab, Sindh, and Nepal. The Indian Princes had become vassals of the Company. But the expense of wars leading to the total control of India strained the Company's finances. The Company was forced to petition Parliament for assistance. This was the background to the Charter Act of 1813 which, among other things:

asserted the sovereignty of the British Crown over the Indian territories held by the Company;

renewed the charter of the company for a further twenty years, but o deprived the company of its Indian trade monopoly except for trade in tea and the

trade with Chinao required the company to maintain separate and distinct its commercial and

territorial accounts opened India to missionaries

Government of India Act 1833

The Industrial Revolution in Britain, the consequent search for markets, and the rise of laissez-faire (let it be or leave it alone – capitalist theory of market) economic ideology form the background to this Act (3 & 4 Will. 4 c. 85). The Act:

removed the Company's remaining trade monopolies and divested it of all its commercial functions

renewed for another twenty years the Company's political and administrative authority invested the Board of Control with full power and authority over the Company. As stated

by Professor Sri Ram Sharma,"The President of the Board of Control now became Minister for Indian Affairs."

carried further the ongoing process of administrative centralisation through investing the Governor-General in Council with, full power and authority to superintend and, control the Presidency Governments in all civil and military matters

initiated a machinery for the codification of laws (Code of 1837) provided that no Indian subject of the Company would be debarred from holding any

office under the Company by reason of his religion, place of birth, descent or colour

Christian missionary activities up to 1857 and after

The European powers arrived in India for commercial reasons, especially spices. But they also started converting local Indians to Christianity. Five European countries sent their representatives to India, Great Britain; France; Denmark; Netherlands and Portugal. Of the five European powers the Portuguese were most enthusiast to baptize Indians. The Portuguese were the first European power to arrive in India. Their first ship, under the leadership of Vasco DaGama, arrived in south India in 1498 after it had circled the whole continent of Africa. The Portuguese inspired by the Pope’s order to baptize people around the world not only fought wars against the local Indian rulers, but they even tried to enforced their Roman Catholic prayers on Syrian Christians.After many wars the Portuguese were defeated by local rulers and they had only one big pocket of control in India, Goa. The Portuguese not only fought the Indian rulers, but they also fought against

other European powers in India especially Dutch and English. Many Portuguese churches in Kerala were turned into English and Dutch churches after they were captured by these powers.The English missionaries started acting in India at a much later period.

The British, unlike the Portuguese, didn’t allow the missionaries to enter their territory in the beginning. The British arrived in India in 1600 and they allowed the missionaries to enter their territory only from 1813. Till 1813 British followed the policy of non-interference in religious, social and cultural life of Indian people. The British allowed different churches to establish missionaries in their territory. Some Indians came to believe that the British intended to convert them either by force or by deception (for example by causing them to lose caste) to Christianity. They were seen at various places making vulgar public attack on Hinduism and Islam under protection of British administration. The British religious fashion of the time was Evangelism, and many East India Company officers took it upon themselves to try to convert their sepoys. In 1850, the government enacted a law which enabled a convert to Christianity to inherit his ancestral property. Moreover, the government maintained at its cost chaplains or Christian priests in the army. Many civil officers encouraged Christian propaganda and tried to provide instructions in Christianity in government schools and even in Jails.

The missionaries didn’t only spread Christianity, but they also did humanitarian deeds giving the needy basic necessities of life like food, clothes and shelter. The policy of modernizing indian society was taken up by many Christian missionaries which was encouraged by many religious minded persons such as William Wilberforce and Charles Grant, the Chairman of the Court of Directors of the East India Company , who wanted to spread Christianity in India. They adopted critical attitude towards Indian society and culture on religious ground and believed that Christianity alone was the true religion and that all other religions were false. The missionaries also built schools, colleges, hospital in India, many of them even today have Christian or European originated name, in the hope that western knowledge would destroy people’s faith in their religions. However even missionaries also supported paternalistic imperialistic policies since they looked upon the British empire, supremacy and administration as a necessity for spreading their religious propaganda.

The major centers of Christianity in India are Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Goa, Manipur and Mizoram. During the later half of 19th century and early 20th century various missionary contributed towards social reform and movements.

Orientalist and Angeliscist Controversy

1-Warren Hastings, the first governor-general of India from 1773 to 1785 had a respectful view of India and wanted the Englishmen to learn the language and culture and blend in.2-Hastings founded the Calcutta Madrassah for training Muslims in Islamic Law and Jonathan Duncan founded the Sanskrit College in Benares for the preservation and cultivation of the Hindu laws, literature and religion.3-In the College of Fort William in Calcutta, the employees of the East India Company had to learn Arabic, Persian, Sanskrit, six Indian vernaculars, Hindu, Muslim and English law before being appointed as judges, officials and administrators.4-The college had the patronage of Orientalists like Sir William Jones, best known for his observation that Sanskrit bore resemblance to Latin and Greek.

5-Sir Alexander Johnston, an Orientalist who had mastered Tamil, Telugu and Hindustani and had learned Hindu, Muslim and Buddhist customs had high regard for India and Indians. He told the

Parliament that India had been governed for two thousand years by the natives and they were as competent as Europeans. He asserted that Hindus had made the same progress in logic and metaphysics by 1500 BC, possessed laws superior to the Greek, had knowledge of the numerical system and devised astronomical tables of great worth by 3000 BC.6-The Orientalists were sure that a social change was required in India and that change would come when Indian rediscovered the roots of their civilization.7-The Anglicists consisting of Halt Mackenzie and Charles Trevelyan(Thomas Macaulay’s brother-in-law) argued that the aim of the British should not be to teach Hindu learning, but useful learning and that Hindu and Muslim literature contained only a small portion of any utility.8-The Orientalists countered that the metaphysical sciences found in Sanskrit and Arabic were worthy of being studied, but the real progress was only in studying European languages.9-While this debate was going on between the Anglicists and Orientalists was going on, economic, political and religious reasons worked in favor of the Anglicists.10-In 1827, William Bentinck, whose previous avatar as the Governor of Madras came to an end with the mutiny in Vellore, was sent as the Governor General of India. This time his mission was to turn around the loss making British East India company and one idea was to use more Indians in judicial and administrative posts, reducing the burden on the English establishment.11-Thus arose a need for a large number of Indians who could speak and understand English. Bentinck also wanted to cut down on the translation of English books into vernacular since it was more cost effective to supply English books.12-Even though the Anglicists and Orientalists disagreed on the language to be used for higher learning, they agreed that it was in their interest to extend the British political rule as much as possible.13-Sir Alexander Johnston, the Orientalist who admired the Hindu logic and metaphysics wanted the British to remain in India for a long time and his plan was to appoint Indians to high positions, by which they would become more attached to the British and would have a lot to lose by over throwing their rulers.14-Charles Trevelyan, the leader of the Anglicist lobby, was sure in the 1830s that one day the natives would gain independence, but through education they would be fearful of premature independence and would hold on to the British.15-While economic and political reasons were factors for introducing English education in India by the British, less mentioned is the fact that most of the Anglicists were also Evangelicals who thought that the arrival of English language would cause the death of Hinduism.16-The first signs of dissent came in 1792 from Charles Grant, a British politician and Evangelical, who proposed English education instead of Indian vernaculars mainly as a way to undermine what he called the Hindu fabric of error.17-Introduction of English, he reasoned, would show Hindus how absurd their religion was and dispel many of their myths. The spread of English arts, science and philosophy, along with the spread of Christianity, according to Mr. Grant, would enable the Indian people to rise to the level of human beings.18-Initially the East India Company maintained a policy of religious neutrality even denying permission to missionaries to work in the country.19-When the charter of the East India Company came for renewal before the Parliament in 1813, the Evangelicals, including Zachary Macaulay, father of Thomas Macaulay, had become influential as to add a provision allowing missionaries to enter the country legally, as well as provide public funding for Indian education. The wording of this Charter Act of 1813 would be subject to intense scrutiny by Thomas Macaulay during his time in India.20-Trevelyan, Macaulay’s brother-in-law, was sure that English education would bring the end of the idolatrous religion of India since Hinduism was not a religion which would bear examination.

21-All that was needed, according to him, was to prove that the world did not rest on the back of a tortoise or is it composed of concentric circles of wine, cake and milk and the religion would be gone. The enlightened natives would need a religion and they would go for Christianity.22-It is not that Orientalists were any better. Sir William Jones who discovered the relationship between Sanskrit and European languages believed that Bible was history, Indians were descended from Noah’s son Ham andVedas were not written before the Biblical flood.23-It is in 1832 that Macaulay makes his first appearance, as a member of the Select Committee in Britain which looked into the affairs of the East India Company.24-The Committee had concluded that the cultivation of English was needed for placing natives in positions of trust as well for operating on their habits and character.25-Meanwhile in India, the fight between the Orientalists, who believed in educating Europeans in the language of the East and Anglicists who believed in educating the Asians in sciences of the West became more than just a linguistic battle.26-The debate took political overtones with Trevelyan using the term “liberal” for his cause thus depicting the Orientalists as conservative.27-Trevelyan concluded that the most effective way of communicating knowledge to Indian youth was by teaching them English literature and when that was not possible, by providing translations in native languages, but not through Oriental studies.28-In 1830, there was not much by means of popular elementary education and both the Anglicists and Orientalists agreed that vernaculars were the best for education at lower levels. Though they agreed on the vernaculars, their disagreement was on the use and value of classical Indian languages.29-It was not as if Trevelyan did not know much about India’s past. In one of his tracts he noted that Hindus were literate at a time when the British were barbarians and after many years of foreign rule and anarchy, they remained literate.30-His fight was against the Orientalists who according to him did nothing for the enlightenment of the Asians. In fact the fight was not an either-or fight between English and Oriental languages, but over priorities.31-The Orientalists recognized the need for European science and literature, but thought their first duty was to revive and extend the literature of the country, while the Anglicists were for direct instruction in English.32-Even before Macaulay set foot in India, the British were battling with ideas for the extension of British rule for at least a century, and to introduce Christianity while maintaining “religious neutrality”. The means for achieving all those, through English, had almost been won by the Anglicists under the leadership of Charles Trevelyan even though Orientalists occupied all important positions in the field of education.33-So invigorated was he by his pending victory that Trevelyan was willing to spend rest of his life for the moral and intellectual regeneration of the people of India.34-He wanted to establish an education system comprehensive enough to expand to every village in the country which would change the face of India in quarter century.35-He claimed that Hinduism and Mohammedanism would be shaken to the core and “our language, our learning and our religion would be established in India”.36-In the 1820s and 1830s there was an interest among wealthy Bengali Hindus to learn English, European literature and science and for that purpose they established a Hindu college.37-Their aim was not to reject the Hindu heritage, but to learn from the West without bias. This venture had the support of conservative Hindus and reformers like Ram Mohan Roy.

38-These reformers hoped that English would instruct Indians in mathematics, natural philosophy and useful sciences instead of Vedantic speculation and their efforts were used by Trevelyan and Macaulay for their campaign....

Peasant and tribal uprising during the early nationalist era

India’s struggle for freedom had been a long drawn out battle. Though it actually began in the second half of the 19th century, isolated attempts were made in various parts of the country to bring the British rule in India to an end about a century earlier. The real power in northern India passed into the hands of the British in 1757. The loss of independence provided the motive force for the struggle for freedom and Indians in different parts of the country began their efforts to throw off the yoke of the alien rulers. It took over 100 years for the struggle to gain full momentum. Very seldom, however, during this period (1757 to 1857) was the country free from either civil or military disturbances and there was plenty of opposition, often from very substantial section of the common people.

Surprisingly enough, the opposition to foreign rule in early years came more from the peasants, labourers and the weaker sections of the society than from the educated bourgeois classes. Unscrupulous defiance of moral principle and the reckless exploitation of the masses that characterised the early activities of the traders made the rule of the East India Company hateful to the people. The proselytising activities of the Christian missionaries were greatly resented all around. The deliberate destruction of Indian manufactures and handicrafts aggravated agrarian misery and economic discontent. All these factors led to local resistance in different parts of this vast country which was basically united in its opposition to the British rule.

The uprisings of the Chuars in 1799 in the districts of Manbum, Bankura and Midnapore which took an alarming turn were masterminded by the Rani of Midnapore. The Rani was taken prisoner on April 6, 1799 which only made the Chuars more furious. Equally important in the annals of India's struggle for freedom is the rebellion of the Santhals (1855) occupying Rajmahal Hills against the British Government who in league with the mahajans or moneylenders oppressed the industrious people, there being even cases of molestation of women. Under the leadership of two brothers, Sidhu and Kanhu, ten thousand Santhals met in June 1855 and declared their intention to “take possession of the country and set up a government of their own”. In spite of the ruthless measures of the British Government to suppress them, the Santhals showed no signs of submission till February 1856 when their leaders were arrested and most inhuman barbarities were practised on the Santhals after they were defeated.

Famines in late 19 th Century and Policies of British Administration

To understand the question of famine in India, one must first start with the fact that India's climate is characterized by the monsoon, in which a region's weather follows the pattern of a dry climate for most of the year; then comes a period of rains, which is the monsoon. At least once in the course of a decade, the monsoon fails to arrive in any given region.

Traditional agriculture in India and other countries always planned for this by laying aside foodstocks at the village level, which ensured that there would be adequate food in drought years. The central administrative authority, whether it was a Hindu prince, or the Moghul court, would suspend taxes for that period of economic insecurity. Prior to British rule, it was understood that famine needed to be avoided if the central authority was to have any legitimacy as the ruler of an area. The British changed all this.

From about the beginning of the eleventh century to the end of the eighteenth there were 14 major famines in India. Under the period of East India Company rule from 1765-1858 there occurred 16 major

famines, a rate eight times higher than what had been common before. Then, under the period of British Colonial Office rule from 1859 to 1914, there was a major famine in India an average of every two years, or 25 times the historical rate before British rule! The rest of the world's population was growing due to technological progress, but the population of India remained at approximately 220 million for over a century prior to 1914.

Taxation and Agrarian Policy: State investments mostly went into maintaining the institutions of control like the vast army, police, bureaucracy, and the espionage network of the Empire. Very little was made available for the development of human capital resource or even the economic infrastructure that would benefit the general populace. The colonial state and local moneylenders became parasitic classes that were not interested in either economic development or improving the material condition of the peasantry. The burden of high state revenue demand and government refusal to remit even in times of famine made the suffering of the people intense and death difficult to allude.

Promotion of cultivation of cash crops had increased the problem as Farmers of India were traditionally used to do “subsistence farming” by cultivating food grains and using the part of the produce as their food stock for crop failure however forced promotion of cash crop cultivation increased their vulnerability to famines. Also increasing indebtness due to increasing burden of land revenue taxation and rent forced the farmers to sell their plots of land to sahukars (money lenders).This led to the concentration of fertile lands in the hands of a few thousand very rich non -resident landlords. The previously self sufficient farmer was forced to work as a labourer on his own land. Even those farmers who managed to hold on to their land, the acreage under their ownership was for most part between 5-6 acres, which was not sufficient to support the farmer and his family. Added to this was an influx of artisans, craftsmen etc who had been thrown out of work due to the British murder of Indian industry. They had no option but to work as labourers on bigger farms with virtually no resources to withstand a famine. Commercialization of land decreased the pasture land and forest land – increasing pressure on agriculture.

Theory of Malthus and “Free Market”: British officers and policy makers were influenced by Political Economist Malthus who said that “Population growth is bad as population would grow to an extent that the resources would no longer be enough to support it and positive checks, which raise the death rate such as disease, famines hold the population within resource limit”. Hence many British officials saw the massive death tolls due to famines as a “positive check” on the population of Indians!

In all the famines which took place under the British Raj, there never was a shortage of food in the country overall .In fact during the worst famines, surplus food grains were being exported from India during that time. Because There was increase in prices due to famines in many areas and vast segments of the population became debt slaves to the money-lenders and did not have even assets, hence not able to buy even food. The government of India, however, refused to change its food policy and steadfastly clung to the view so far held that, 'even in the worst conceivable emergency, so long as trade is free to follow its normal course, we should do far more harm than good by attempting to interfere....' 

Slave Policy – “Famine Relief Camps” & Role of Railway Development:

Britain's colonial overseers agreed on the need for the development of a rudimentary infrastructure to increase the efficiency of their rule in India and other colonies, and looting of India. But the proposed grid of railroads and large-scale irrigation works was too expensive, from the colonialists' point of view. So, the decision was made to force the already plundered Indian population to pay for these development projects. However India at that time did not have a landless laboring class due to traditional so British

rulers saw these famines as opportunity for them to get “cheap” labour for their capitalist projects. To build the railroads, the British set up "famine relief works." A famine would create the condition, such that, faced with certain death from lack of food, an Indian would be forced to "choose" to go to a famine relief center in exchange of food. The conditions of work at these relief caps were very harsh and inhuman considering that they are being run for famine relief.

There were 288 miles of rail in India in 1857; By 1881, there were 9,891 miles; there were 19,555 miles by 1895; and 34,656 miles by 1914. With the expansion of the railroads, and "famine relief" which built the railroads, the exports of food grains rose rapidly. The development of the railroads also helped to develop a class of Indian money-lenders, who became the intermediaries for the British. This allowed for the British to control even areas which were not affected by crop failures.

Other Works:

There were some irrigation works (i.e. canals, dams etc) were done by British did in India. But the fact remains that they were only built in those areas where the British had a commercial interest in growing grains or cash crops. Traditional Indian irrigation systems were neglected and allowed to fall into ruin.Expenditure on famine relief was considered wasteful and uneconomic. Some government sanitation measures were primarily geared towards protecting British cantonments and civil lines where most of the European population was concentrated.

Consequences

between 1870 and 1920 the life expectancy fell by 20%, population declined by 10% and net cropped area decreased by 12%.45 It can also be argued that although the colonial state reluctantly recognized only three famines in the late 19th century, yet drought like conditions prevailed in general throughout Central India taking a heavy toll of human and cattle lives.

Commercialization of Indian Agriculture during British Rule and Its Impact

Revolutionary changes had occurred in the agrarian property relations towards the end of the 18th century. This was over a period of time, followed by a commercial revolution in the agricultural sector. Commercialization of agriculture became prominent around 1860 A.D. This brought about a change from cultivation for home consumption to cultivation for the market. Cash transactions become the basis of exchange and largely replaced the barter system.

Various factors led to the commercialization of agriculture during the British rule in India. The chief factor was the colonial subjugation of India under the British rule. India was reduced to the supplier of raw materials and food grains to Britain and importer of British manufactured goods. Many commercial crops like, cotton, jute, tea, tobacco were introduced to meet the demand in Britain.

Better means of communication (equipped with rapid development of railways and shipping) made trade in agricultural products feasible, especially over long distances. The emergence of grain merchants was a natural adjunct to this and greatly facilitated agricultural trade. Monetization of land revenue payments was another important casual factor for agricultural commercialization.

Further, increasing demand for some of the commercial crops in other foreign countries gave impetus to commercialization of agriculture.

The American Civil War also indirectly encouraged commercialization of agriculture in India: the British cotton demand was diverted to India. The demand of cotton was maintained even after the civil war ceased because of the rise of cotton textile industries in India.

Impact of Commercialization

Coming to the impact of the commercialization of agriculture, normally speaking, it should have acted as a catalyst in increasing agricultural productivity. But, in reality this did not happen due to poor agricultural organization, obsolete technology, and lack of resources among most peasants. It was only the rich farmers; who benefited and this in turn, accentuated inequalities of income in the rural society.

A significant feature of commercialization of agriculture in India was the substitution of commercial non-food grains in place of food grains. George Byn records that between 1893-94 to 1945-46, the production of commercial crops increased by 85 percent and that of food crops fell by 7 percent. This had a devastating effect on the rural economy and often took the shape of famines.

Regional specialization of crop production based on climatic conditions, soil etc., was an outcome of the commercial revolution in agriculture. Deccan districts of Bombay presidency grew cotton, Bengal grew jute and Indigo, Bihar grew opium, Assam grew tea, Punjab grew wheat, etc.,

Another important consequence of the commercial revolution in agriculture was linking of the agricultural sector to the world market. Price movements and business fluctuations in the world markets began to affect the fortunes of the Indian farmer to a degree that it had never done before. The farmer in his choice of crops attached greater importance to market demand and price than his home needs. The commercialization of agriculture had mixed effects. While it assisted the industrial revolution in Britain, it broke the economic self-sufficiency of villages in India. Nonetheless, the new development was not without any benefits as it provided for a national economy and also brought about regional specialization of crops on an efficient basis.

Dadabhai Naoroji’s Drain Theory

Dadabhai Naoroji helped lay the foundation of India's contemporary freedom struggle. At a time when the East India Company had systematically dismantled the nationalistic co- operation between the princely states of India, rose to prominence Dadabhai Naoroji, a peerless patriot who defined the modern Indian freedom struggle. He went on to become the first Indian Professor of Mathematics and Natural Philosophy.

Dadabhai felt that the British misrule of India was because of ignorance of the way of life and needs on the Indian people. To remedy this he felt that he must educate the Indian masses of their rights. Dadabhai began free literacy classes for girls in Marathi and Gujarati. He set up the

Dnyan Prasarak Mandali (Society for Promotion of Knowledge) for the education of adult menfolk.

He founded the East Indian Association on December 1st, 1866. The association was comprised of high ranking officers from India and people who had access to Members of the British Parliament. Dadabhai had become the unofficial ambassador of India.

Dadabhai was elected to the British Parliament in 1892 from Central Finsbury as the Liberal party candidate. This made it possible for Dadabhai to work for India from within! He got a resolution passed for holding preliminary examinations for the I.C.S. in India and England simultaneously and also got the Wiley Commission, the royal commission on India expenditure, to acknowledge the need for even distribution of administrative and military expenditure between India and England. 

After spending years collecting statistics, Dadabhai propounded the drain theory: "The inevitable consequence of foreign domination is the drain of wealth of the subject nation to the country of the rulers." Dadabhai proved that the average annual income of an Indian was barely Rs. 20. Examining the import and export figures for 37 years, he proved that India's exports exceeded its imports by Rs. 50 crores (approximately $135 million) annually for which it is not getting equivalent economic return because in that case there would not be plight among Indian peasants and manufacturers. The annual tribute paid to British Government by Company made part of ‘drain’. He also observed the ‘drain’ in the form of remittances in sterling to England in the form of salaries, incomes, and savings by civil servants, military officials, military expenditures which was satisfying colonial objectives – policy of exclusion of Indians from civil services and military officers was increasing these remittances too high.

India in World War – I

When was broke out in 1914, India was in a state of growing political unrest. The Indian National Congress had gone from being a group that simply discussed issues to a body that was pushing for more self-government. Before the war started, the Germans had spent a great deal of time and energy trying to stir up an anti-British movement in India. Many shared the view that if Britain got involved in a crisis somewhere in the world, Indian separatists would use this as an opportunity to advance their cause.

These fears were unfounded. When war was declared on August 4th, India rallied to the cause. Those with influence within India believed that the cause of Indian independence would best be served by helping out Britain in whatever capacity India could – including the Indian National Congress. Offers of financial and military help were made from all over the country. Hugely wealthy princes offered great sums of money, and even areas outside of British India offered help – Nepal offered help and in total sent 100,000 Gurkhas and the Dalai Lama in Tibet offered 1000 of his troops to the cause. Despite the pre-war fears of unrest, Britain, in fact, could take many troops and most of her military equipment out of India as fears of unrest subsided. Indian troops were ready for battle before most other troops in the dominions.

Also The Indian Army had undergone major reforms in 1903, after Kitchener was appointed Commander-in-Chief, India. He instituted the large–scale reforms, including merging the three armies of the Presidencies into a unified force and forming higher level formations, ten army divisions.

Indian troops were on the Western Front by the winter of 1914 and fought at the first Battle of Ypres. By the end of 1915, they had sustained many casualties. Along with the casualties from sickness, the decision was taken to withdraw the Indian Corps from front line duty at the end of 1915. In World War I the Indian Army fought against the German Empire in German East Africa and on the Western Front. At the First Battle of Ypres, Khudadad Khan became the first Indian to be awarded a Victoria Cross. Indian divisions were also sent to Egypt, Gallipoli and nearly 700,000 served in Mesopotamia against the Ottoman Empire.

Minor Rebellion Movements

Wahabi Movement and Faraizi Movement

The great Wahabi Movement covered a period of over 50 years and was spread from the North-West Frontier to Bengal and Bihar. It was not an ephemeral or sudden upheaval: without any definite aim or organisation, like the Revolt of 1857.

The Wahabi Movement essentially condemned all changes and innovations to Islam. It was a revivalist movement which held that the return to the true spirit of Islam was the only way to get rid of the socio- political oppression. It was influenced by the teachings of Abdul Wahab of Arabia.

To materialize the desired objectives of the Wahabi Movement, Syed Ahmed looked for the right leader, a proper organization, a safe territory, wherefrom to launch his Jihad. Syed Ahmed was declared as the desired leader or Imam. He built up a countrywide organization with an elaborate secret code. The organization worked under four spiritual associate trustees called Khalifas. The missions of the Wahabis were mainly concentrated in the region of Hyderabad, Chennai, Bengal, Uttar Pradesh and Mumbai.

The movement continued well over forty years after the death of its leader Saiyid Ahmed in 1831. The British set over twenty expeditions before they were able to crush the movement. Important leaders of the movement-Yahya Ali, Ahmadullah, Amiruddin, Ibrahim Mandal, Rafique Mandal and their comrades were tried at the state trials of Ambala (1864), Patna (1865), Malda (Sept. 1870) and Rajmahal (October 1870), convicted and transported for life.

 Faraizi Movement [1820-1860]

A similar movement known as the Faraizi Movement started in Bengal by Haji Shariatullah of Faridpur, He made incumbent on its followers to carry on struggle against the political and economic exploitation of the foreigners. After returning from Mecca (hence the title Hajji) after a 20 year hiatus Shariatullah, seeing the degraded Muslims of Bengal, called on them to give up un-Islamic practices and act upon their duties as Muslims (Faraiz). The movement was also concerned with the British influence upon Muslims and called for social justice.His son Dadu Miyan (1819-1860) asserted that the earth belonged to God and no one has the right to occupy it. He also formed an armed force of cudgel bearers to attack the zamindars and their followers and then went one stage further by attempting to form a parallel Muslim government within East Bengal.The movement lost much of its vigour after the death of Dadu Miyan in 1860.

 

Rangpur Rebellion [1783]

Situated in Bengal. The Rangpur rebellion of 1783, against Devi Singh, was significant on many accounts. First, the uprising of 1783 clearly exposed the evils associated with the system of colonial exploitation. Second, the rebellion of 1783 demonstrated the colonial oppression. It also exposed how the law of independent social development was being suppressed by the foreign rulers.

Third, it has been pointed out by Prof. N. Kaviraj that all the native agents of the East India Company were linked with the Company's high officials in the same chain in oppressing the people of the country. Fourth, the Rangpur rebellion made clear the evils of the Ijaradari system. Devi Singh, an ijaradar of Rangpur showed the way how people could be exploited beyond their endurance. Fifth, the Rangpur uprising paved the way for devising a land settlement that would be permanent in nature.

Devi Singh was a land-speculator. Ijaradari system was introduced by Warren Hastings. The Ijaradars were basically land-speculators. Ijaradars were basically land-speculators. They used to obtain the ijara of land on payment of an amount of money to the British government. Thus the ijaradars squeezed out as much money as possible in the form of revenue from the peasants during the period of the ijara.

Kol Movement [1831-1832]

The kols inhabited large portion of the chota nagpur region. They rebelled to resist British entry into their dominion.Soon they joined the Munda rebellion.

It was only in the middle of 19th century that the kols and the mundas were finally defeated. In 1820 the Raja of Singhbum acknowledged the supremacy of the British.The restless Kol tribes, however, resented the agreement and broke into a rebellion in 1831-1832.They were joined by the Munda tribe. The immediate cause of the Kol uprising was the oppression of the local tribes by the non-adivasi thikadars(contractors) or farmers of rented lands. The Kols,the Mundas and the Oreons joined and burnt the houses of many diku(outsider) landlords and killed many of them.The British suppressed the rebellion with great effort.A register of all tribal land was completed in 1862.It was in favour of the landlords than the adivasis.

Kuka Movement [1872] The Kuka Movement marked the first major reaction of the people in the Punjab to the new political order initiated by the British after 1849. The Namdhari Movement of which the Kuka Movement was the most important phase aimed at the overthrow of the British rule. Ram Singh, who became its leader in 1863, gave military training to his followers. It seemed inevitable that before long, a clash would occur between the Kukas and the British Government. The clash

actually occurred over the question of slaughter of cows. It started with murderous attacks on butchers of Amritsar and Raikot (Ludhiana District) in 1871 and culminated in the Kuka raid on Malerkotla on January 15, 1872. The Kuka outbreak of 1872 was visited by terrible punishment, which was equalled in brutality by few events in our history. A large number of Kuka prisoners were blown to death with cannons, their leader Ram Singh was deported to Rangoon. There were some of the militant movements which preceded the birth of the Indian National Congress. However it was the intellectual movement which now dominated politics. The political ideas and organisations which had taken root before 1857 now flowered into a new national or political consciousness. This was brought about by sudden revelation of India’s past glory through the works of foreign and Indian scholars and large scale excavations carried out by Alexander Cunningham. The preachings of various associations such as the Arya Samaj, Theosophical Society and Ramakrishna Mission also helped in this process.

Deccan Riots [1875]

In May and June, 1875 peasants of Maharastra in some parts of Pune, Satara and Nagar districts revolted against increasing agrarian distress. The Deccan Riots of 1875 targeted conditions of debt peonage (kamiuti) to moneylenders. The sole purpose of the rioters was to obtain and destroy the bonds, decrees, and other documents in the possession of the moneylenders. The Deccan peasants mainly directed their revolt to the excesses of the Marwari and the Gujarat moneylenders.

The Deccan riot was the upshot of a number of adverse circumstances. The excessive government land revenue, slump in the international cotton prices at the end of the American Civil War etc made the economic condition of the Deccan peasants extremely miserable. They were immersed in enormous debts. The greedy Marwari and the Gujarat moneylenders adept in the art of manipulation drew unjust tax and money from the peasants. The peasants being illiterate unknowingly signed the bond without having a proper knowledge of what is there in the bond. The civil courts invariably gave verdicts in favor of the exorbitant moneylenders.

The trouble of the Deccan Riot was first originated in the village Kardeh in Sirur Taluk in December 1874. When a Marwari moneylender Kalooram obtained a decree of eviction against Baba Saheb Deshmukh, a cultivator in debt to him for Rs.150. The oppressive attitude of the moneylender in pulling down his house provoked the rage of the villagers. The entire Poona district was burning by June 1875. The peasants attacked the moneylender`s house, shops and burnt them down. The chief target were the bond of documents deeds and the decrees that the moneylenders held against them. The peasant uprising spread to most of the Taluks of the Ahmednagar district. The Government of India put the Police assisted by the military into action in order to put an end to the revolt.

The Deccan riot was a fragmented revolution. Finally the Government of India appointed the Deccan Riots Commission to investigate into the causes of the uprising. The Agriculturists Relief Act of 1879 passed several measures for the betterment of the Deccan peasants. The Act put restrictions on the alienation of the peasants land and imposed some restrictions on the Civil Procedure Code. As a result the Peasant could not be arrested and sent to the civil debtors jail owing to the failure of paying debts.

The Deccan riots had received a great deal of attention. The Deccan riots revealed the oppressive nature of the British Government also induced a change in the rural society; through this uprising peasants

became united to raise a cohesive protest against the moneylenders and the British Government of India.

Birsa Movement [1895] The Birsa Movement of 1895 aimed at the overthrow of the British Raj and the establishment of the Munda Self-Government. It continued for 5 years even after the arrest of its leader Birsa in January 1898 who was deported to Ranchi. He renewed his activities after release and exhorted its followers to get rid of the foreign oppressors and establish their own rule. In the fight that ensued, about 2000 Mundas were killed, Birsa was captured and died in June 1900 while in jail.

Moplah Movement [1921] The Moplah outbreak of 1921 in the wake of Khilafat agitation also deserves to be mentioned. The Moplahs rose in revolt in Malabar, killed British officers and declared the establishment of Swaraj. However in the process Moplahs were also guilty of acts of forcible conversion of Hindus and looting of their property. The British Government came down with a heavy hand, and in the fierce fighting that followed about 3,000 Moplahs were killed, and another batch of seventy died in horrible conditions due to asphyxiation as they were being conveyed by train without any arrangement for ventilation.

Inter-War economy of India: Industries and problem of Protection and Agricultural Distress

The Great Depression

The Great Depression was a severe worldwide economic depression in the decade preceding World War II. The depression originated in the U.S., starting with the fall in stock prices that began around September 4, 1929 and became worldwide news with the stock market crash of October 29, 1929 (known as Black Tuesday). From there, it quickly spread to almost every country in the world. The Great Depression had devastating effects in virtually every country, rich and poor. Personal income, tax revenue, profits and prices dropped, while international trade plunged by more than 50%. Unemployment in the U.S. rose to 25%, and in some countries rose as high as 33%.

Thus, the personal political and policy viewpoints of scholars greatly color their analysis of historic events occurring eight decades ago. An even larger question is whether the Great Depression was primarily a failure on the part of free markets or a failure of government efforts to regulate interest rates, curtail widespread bank failures, and control the money supply. Those who believe in a larger economic role for the state believe that it was primarily a failure of free markets, while those who believe in a smaller role for the state believe that it was primarily a failure of government that compounded the problem – such as actions by the US Federal Reserve that contracted the money supply, as well as Britain's decision to return to the Gold Standard at pre–World War I parities (US$4.86:£1)..

A major cause of financial instability, which preceded and accompanied the Great Depression, was the debt that many European countries had accumulated to pay for their involvement in the First World

War. This debt destabilised many European economies as they tried to rebuild during the 1920s. Britain suffered huge material and military losses during world war – II. The resulting loss of foreign exchange earnings left the British economy more dependent upon exports, and more vulnerable to any downturn in world markets. But the war had permanently eroded Britain's trading position in world markets through disruptions to trade and losses of shipping. Overseas customers for British produce had been lost, especially for traditional exports such as textiles, steel and coal.

The Great Depression of 1929 had a very severe impact on India, which was then under the rule of the British Raj. The Government of British India adopted a protective trade policy which, though beneficial to the United Kingdom, caused great damage to the Indian economy. During the period 1929–1937, exports and imports fell drastically crippling seaborne international trade. The railways and the agricultural sector were the most affected. The international financial crisis combined with detrimental policies adopted by the Government of India resulted in the soaring prices of commodities. High prices along with the stringent taxes prevalent in British India had a dreadful impact on the common man. The discontent of farmers manifested itself in rebellions and riots.

India suffered badly due to the Great Depression. The price decline from late 1929 to October 1931 was 36 percent compared to 27 percent in the United Kingdom and 26 percent in the United States. Because the fall in prices had been higher in India compared to the rest of the world, the price of commodities manufactured in India rose dramatically compared to imports from the United Kingdom or some other country in the world. Farmers who were cultivating food crops had earlier moved over to cash crop cultivation in large numbers to meet the demands of the mills in the United Kingdom. Now, they were crippled as they were unable to sell their products in India due to the high prices; nor could they export the commodities to the United Kingdom which had recently adopted a protective policy prohibiting imports from India.Rice, wheat, etc., could be used for private consumption but the cash crops which they now cultivated could not be used for private consumption. There was a deficiency of money in many places causing widespread poverty. In such a condition, the most recommended course of action is the devaluation of currency. Most countries afflicted by the Great Depression as Australia, New Zealand, Brazil and Denmark reduced the exchange value of their currencies.

Therefore, having incurred heavy losses, the farmer was compelled to sell off gold and silver ornaments in his possession in order to pay the land rent and other taxes. By 1931, around 1600 ounces of gold were arriving every day at the port of Bombay. This gold intake was transported to the United Kingdom to compensate for the low bullion prices in the country and thereby revitalize the British economy. United Kingdom was overjoyed as its economy recovered with gold and silver from India. India's share of the world income fell from 22.6% in 1700, comparable to Europe's share of 23.3%, to a low of 3.8% in 1952.

Ottawa agreements and Discriminatory Protection

The British Empire Economic Conference (also known as the Imperial Economic Conference or Ottawa Conference) was a 1932 conference of British colonies and the autonomous dominions held to discuss the Great Depression. It was held between 21 July and 20 August in Ottawa, Canada.

The conference saw the group admit the failure of the gold standard and abandon attempts to return to it. The meeting also worked to establish a zone of limited tariffs within the British Empire, but with high tariffs with the rest of the world. This was called "Imperial preference" or "Empire Free-Trade". This abandonment of open free trade led to a split in the British government. The conference was especially notable for its adoption of Keynesian ideas such as lowering interest rates, increasing the money supply, and expanding government spending.

Imperial preference could also include other sorts of preference, such as favourable consideration in the allocation of public contracts, indirect subsidies to shipping, and preferential access to the capital market. Such arrangements were enforced in the first half of the 20th century by most countries with dependent colonies; of these, the British imperial preference introduced in 1932 was perhaps the most important.

With a radical change in tariff policy in 1931 and 1932, the United Kingdom removed the ban on the taxation of food imports, opening the way for a systematic policy of imperial preference. Such a policy—based on the principle of “home producers first, empire producers second, and foreign producers last”—was negotiated at the Imperial Economic Conference in Ottawa in 1932 and took the form of a series of bilateral agreements intended to extend for five years (lacking a formal renewal, they expired after 1937).

The agreements pledged the United Kingdom to allow the continued free entry of most imperial goods and to impose new tariffs on certain food and metal imports from foreign countries. The dominions were to use their tariffs against U.K. produce only in order to protect efficient producers, and both sides were to maintain certain margins of preference. Although the political reasons for the agreements were strong, the effect of the Great Depression, the search for “sheltered markets,” and the spread of the protectionist spirit (evidenced by the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of the United States in 1930) were probably more important. Trade within the empire increased after the Ottawa conference, but other factors also contributed to the upswing, including the recovery of prices of primary products and the existence of the sterling bloc, a group of countries that held the bulk of their exchange reserves with the Bank of London.

The Indian agreement formulated at Ottawa followed the general lines as the agreements with the Dominions, but included ‘certain’ provisions designed specifically to ‘suit’ Indian conditions and interests. In general the agreement provided for the admission of Indian goods to British market either free or at preferential rates, in return for a preference in India for a long list of British Manufacturers. For example ‘preferential’ rate were given to Indian cotton and pig-iron export to Britsh market in return of ‘privileges’ granted to Britsh goods – British manufactured textile and Steel in colonial market.

Indian legislative assembly passed a resolution against this in 1935 but it could invalidate the agreement. Indian’s trade within Empire is promoted by Ottawa agreement during depression although world trade revived substantially after about 1935 there was then a more rapid increase in India’s trade with foreign than with Empire countries, and in non-preferred than in preferred goods. Indian export of raw materials pig-iron, raw cotton increased substantially at ‘preferential rates’ and import of british capital goods and material – steel, textile etc. This increased trade at the cost of Indian manufacturing industries. Preference was also given to Britsh manufacturers in Indian market by way of increasing duty on foreign goods.

Indian legislative assembly in the leadership of Congress gave notice to end the agreement and subsequently new trade agreement was negotiated in 1939 which reduced the list of british preferential goods from 106 to only 20 with some concessions like limited import and British importing defined raw cotton. Indian politicians questioned the reality of fiscal autonomy convention, with special reference to the forcing of the Ottawa Agreement upon India, and objected strongly to the special provisions to prevent “commercial discrimination” which were included in 1935 constitution.

Commercial Discrimination included in Government of India Act 1935

Under the Act, British citizens resident in the UK and British companies registered in the UK must be treated on the same basis as Indian citizens and Indian registered companies unless UK law denies reciprocal treatment. The unfairness of this arrangement is clear when one considers the dominant position of British capital in much of the Indian modern sector and the complete dominance, maintained through unfair commercial practices, of UK shipping interests in India's international and coastal shipping traffic and the utter insignificance of Indian capital in Britain and the non-existence of Indian involvement in shipping to or within the UK. There are very detailed provisions requiring the Viceroy to intervene if, in his unappealable view, any India law or regulation is intended to, or will in fact, discriminate against UK resident British subjects, British registered companies and, particularly, British shipping interests.

Modern Temple of India

In 1954, while inaugurating the Bhakra Nangal dam, the then Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru christened it as the 'temple of modern India'. And so were born Nehru's 'temples' - public sector undertakings (PSUs), dams and steel plants - that took the onus of making India self-sufficient.

Dams: Nehru wanted to create a balance between the rural and the urban sectors in his economic policies. He stated there was no contradiction between the two and that both could go hand in hand. He denied to carry forward the age old city versus village controversy and hoped that in India, both could go hand in hand. Nehru was intent to harness and fully exploit the natural resources of India for the benefit of his countrymen. The main sector he identified was hydroelectricity, and he constructed a number of dams to achieve that end. The dams would not only harness energy, but would also support irrigation to a great degree. Nehru considered dams to be the very symbol of India's collective growth, as they were the platforms where industrial engineering and agriculture met on a common platform.

Steel Plants: The steel sector was to propel the economic growth. Hindustan Steel Private Limited was set up on January 19, 1954. Hindustan Steel (HSL) was initially designed to manage only one plant that was coming up at Rourkela. For Bhilai and Durgapur Steel Plants, the preliminary work was done by the Iron and Steel Ministry with the help of USSR.

Nuclear Energy: Homi Jehangir Bhabha was undoubtedly the father of Indian nuclear research and the architect of India’s nuclear strategy and diplomacy. In the 1930’s, Bhabha studied with the eminent nuclear scientist Lord Ernest Rutherford. He also associated himself with other great experts in the field like Niels Bohr, James Franck, Erico Fermi and WB Lewis. On his return to India, Bhabha convinced the Tatas to finance the establishment of a centre for research to study nuclear physics. Thus India’s nuclear progamme predates the dawn of independence. The Tata Institute of Fundamental Research (TIFR) was established in Bombay on 19 December 1945, four months after Hiroshima and months before India

became independent Bhabha was already in command of India’s nuclear future. He dominated the Indian nuclear scene till his unfortunate demise in an air crash twenty years later.

When Nehru became the Prime Minister, he entrusted Bhabha with complete authority over all nuclear related matters. Not only functional autonomy was given, it was also above parliamentary and administrative scrutiny. At Bhabha’s request the Atomic Energy Act was passed by the Constituent Assembly, creating the Atomic Energy Commission. India pursued what Nehru called “a peaceful nuclear programme”, implying that the programme was developed not to manufacture nuclear weapons, but instead to provide energy to the people. But certain important figures in the Indian nuclear establishment, including Homi Bhabha, thought differently.

Regionalism and regional inequality

In politics, regionalism is a political ideology that focuses on the interests of a particular region or group of regions. Regionalism centers on increasing the region's influence and political power, either through movements for limited form of autonomy (devolution, states' rights, decentralization) – termed as positive regionalism -- or through stronger measures for a greater degree of autonomy like secession from Union – termed as negative regionalism.

Amidst the amazing diversities, it is natural that regional feelings, regional parties, regional institutions and similar other organizations meant for voicing the aspirations of local people and providing forums for them, can emerge. Indeed, with the passage of years, the multi-faceted aspirations, which together may be described as regionalism, have gained strength in India due to same reasons. Regionalism is not in India and was very active force within India even before colonial British rule in terms of various local rulers, chiefs etc. Even during British rule regionalism was encouraged up to a limited extent to hold Indian national movement and to prevent people to think as a nation by British policies. The framers of constitution tried to curb regionalism by providing single citizenship, unified judiciary, all Indian services, and a strong Central government. However due to vast size and diversity of India regionalism appeared in various forms.

Is Regionalism unhealthy? : In principle, regionalism need not be regarded as an unhealthy or anti-national phenomenon—unless it takes a militant, aggressive turn and encourages the growth of secessionist tendencies, (as it did in come case like Punjab, some North East States, Kashmire). National unity is not impaired if the people of a region have a genuine pride in their language and culture. But regionalism develops into a serious threat to national unity if politicians do not go beyond their regional loyalty and claim to stand only for their regional interests. Enforced uniformity in a huge country like India would be sheer-folly. Regional parties do not hinder national unity and integrity as long as they do not exceed their area of activity.

Causes of Regionalism: - Apart from ethnic, cultural and traditional differences other causes of the growth of regionalism

is prolonged maladministration and neglect of an area or State by the Central, Government, unequal distribution of resources, disproportionate economic and social development.

- There has been a creeping disillusionment against Central rule. Regional symbols, regional culture, history and in many cases a common language, all promote regionalism.

- The Centre's and in some cases States’ indifference to the development of certain regions within nation and states has created imbalances. Some areas are well developed, with adequate infrastructure while others are way behind. This explains why there is Telegu Desam in Andhra Pradesh, DMK in Tamil Nadu and the Jharkhand Movement in Bihar.

- Regionalism also appeared as a reaction against the effort of national government to impose a particular ideology, language or cultural pattern on all people and groups.

- As the country is still away from achieving a national state, various groups are failed to see their group interests with national interests hence feeling of regionalism persisted.

Emergence of Regionalism in Independent India:

State Reorganization:The formation of states along linguistic and ethnic lines has occurred in India in numerous instances since independence in 1947 by State Reorganization Act 1956 which was due to regional and ethnic demand of various regions and to ensure various linguistic communities’ interest are secured in Union of India.

Anti-Hindi Movement:

Telangana Movement: An early manifestation of regionalism was the Telangana movement in what became the state of Andhra Pradesh. The princely ruler of Hyderabad, the nizam, had attempted unsuccessfully to maintain Hyderabad as an independent state separate from India in 1947. Faced with the refusal of the nizam of Hyderabad to accede his territory to India and the violence of the communist-led rebellion, the central government sent in the army in September 1948. By November 1949, Hyderabad had been forced to accede to the Indian union, and, by October 1951, the violent phase of the Telangana movement had been suppressed. The effect of the 1946-51 rebellion and communist electoral victories in 1952 had led to the destruction of Hyderabad and set the scene for the establishment of a new state along linguistic lines. The concerns about Telangana were manifold. The region had a less developed economy than Andhra, but a larger revenue base (mostly because it taxed rather than prohibited alcoholic beverages), which Telanganas feared might be diverted for use in Andhra. They also feared that planned dam projects on the Krishna and Godavari rivers would not benefit Telangana proportionately even though Telanganas controlled the headwaters of the rivers. Telanganas feared too that the people of Andhra would have the advantage in jobs, particularly in government and education. These fears of the people were allayed with special arrangements within Andhra Pradesh by ensuring equitable and proportional representation in political and administrative set-up by Indian Government by implementing a “Gentlemen Formula” like for 5 years use of Urdu, and subsequently Urdu, proportional reservation in Civil Services, arrangement of vice-chief minister from Telangana if CM from Andhra region or vice versa.

India’s Foreign policy of Non-alignment during Nehru & Relations with neighbours

Jawaharlal Nehru is considered to be the architect of modern India. Apart from his careful handling of India's tumultuous domestic situation in the years immediately after the Independence, Nehru's major contribution lies in the field of foreign policies. In fact, Nehru determined India's international profile to a great degree in the post-independence years, in his capacity as the foreign minister of India.

Jawaharlal Nehru's foreign policy has been made subject to much controversy and debate, like his economic policies. However, taken in the context of India's newly found status as a democratic republic, Nehru's foreign affairs policies seem to be extremely apt.

Socialism can be said to be one of the greatest international influences on Nehru, but Gandhi's ideals of Satyagraha also influenced him to a great degree. But he committed himself to neither point of view in framing his foreign policy. Nehru's foreign policies were characterized by two major ideological aspects. First, he wanted India to have an identity that would be independent of any form of overt commitment to either power bloc, the USA or the Soviet. Secondly, he had an unshaken faith in goodwill and honesty in matters of international affairs. The first policy led ultimately to the founding of the Non-Alignment Movement (NAM). His second faith was terribly shaken by the Chinese attack of 1962, openly disobeying all the clauses of the Panchsheel or five-point agreement of 1954 between New Delhi and Peking. This breach of faith was a major psychological shock for Nehru, and was partially the reason for his death.

The Founding Principles of Nehru's Foreign Policy: Nehru saw war and violent insurgency from very close quarters as a freedom fighter, and he believed in neither. In his foreign policies, Nehru tried to guide India in such a way, so as to steer clear from any form of violence and militarism. He rightly believed that a newly decolonized nation must invest all its economic and logistic resources towards development and not defense and armament. Just like his economic policies, which were non-committal towards any ideological position, Nehru wanted to bring in a healthy level of pragmatism in his dealings of India's foreign affairs as well. He understood that overt commitment to any of the two major power blocs to emerge in the aftermath of World War II, would not serve India's path. He therefore wanted to tread a third path, which was not necessarily the middle path.

It should be remembered that this dogged non-commitment of Nehru was not seen sympathetically by any of the super powers of either East or West at its initial stage. It was frequently termed as a kind of international opportunism and was accused of 'neutralism' - a stance reckoned to be not only dangerous but also equally immoral in the world of International politics. However, the increasing popularity of NAM among various Asian and African countries and Nehru's growing stature as a statesman situation changed their views. India too benefited from this position, as it managed to secure rebuilding grants from member countries of either bloc. After Nehru's successful mediation in the Korean War and the Congo problem, putting an end to a long and violent struggle, his status as a commendable and efficient statesman reached new heights. Jawaharlal Nehru's theory of ideological non-commitment in a world that was rendered dangerous by the Cold War was appreciated by one and all.

Nehru and the Non-Alignment Movement: The greatest success of Jawaharlal Nehru's non-committal international politics was the formation of the Non-Alignment Movement (NAM). Nehru found allies in Tito, Nasser, Soekarno, U Nu and Nkrumah at a later stage in his formation of this new alliance. An alliance of newly independent and long colonized nations was not taken seriously in the beginning, either by the Eastern or the Western bloc. However, the importance of the alliance was soon felt, and initially led to a great degree of international pressure from both parts of the globe. However, Nehru proceeded with his mission undaunted. It was great test for his courage and it was soon found out that the NAM was not merely a passive platform of neutral and inactive nations. It had clear objectives that included the gradual decolonization of the world, and a strong statement that the member countries were not party to the ever escalating tension of the Cold War. The favored process of decolonization as adopted by the NAM member countries was one of discussion and peaceful agreement. On many

occasions, NAM met with success, often under the leadership of Nehru. Whoever supported its cause was an ally and a friend. Nehru preached a policy of issue based alliance and not one based on political and economic dogmas. He was proud of being an Asian, and wanted Asian nations to be the primary determinants of their political fate, not always guided by Western forces.

Nehru's unshaken belief in the force of international brotherhood was attested with his decision to continue with India's Commonwealth status. He was made subject to much criticism back home because of the support he extended towards the Commonwealth, particularly after the complication of the independence issue by the British government in the post World War II years, leading to the unwanted partition. However Nehru, always the believer in peaceful alliances and solution of international affairs based on discussions, went on with his ideals.

Nehru and the Kashmir Problem: Nehru's Foreign policies did not augur well when it came to deal with the neighbors. Kashmir was a perpetual problem, and he failed to reach any successful negotiation regarding Kashmir with the neighbor Pakistan. Nehru had an innate belief in honest fellow-feeling and political generosity. He tried to force a negotiation with the Pakistani government through the United Nations. But the Pakistani military rulers denied any peaceful agreement. The offer of a possible plebiscite was also taken off in 1950. After India's dogged denial of the two-nation theory, a result in favor of Kashmir in the Muslim dominated Kashmir would be a strategic disaster for India. The Kashmir problem remained unresolved, and not even Nehru's diplomatic expertise could give any positive direction to the problem. It still continues to be the one of the key international problems in South Asia.

Nehru and the China Crisis: Nehru's foreign policies concerning China have been made subject to much criticism. However, even in this case, it was Nehru's faith in transparency in the handling of International relations that is seen to be the root of all problems. Nehru was intent on a very warm and mutually beneficial relationship between India and China. The five-point agreement or the Panchsheel between New Delhi and Peking initiated in 1954 was a result of these negotiations. This agreement stated the five principles as:

1. Mutual respect for each other's territorial integrity and sovereignty,2. Mutual non-aggression,3. Mutual non-interference in each other's internal affairs,4. Equality and mutual benefit, and5. Peaceful co-existence .

However, China started patrolling certain parts of the Indian border from 1955 onwards. Delhi started negotiations to solve the problem in a peaceful way. India, under the leadership of Nehru wanted to take one issue at a time and begin the discussions. The Chinese government, under Chou En-lai wanted to treat the border issue in its entirety at one go. It was gross violation of the five-point agreement. The Chinese denial for the arbitration from the International Court of Justice complicated the problem.

Amidst such tensions, the Chinese suddenly started a full-scale invasion in 1962. It was a rude shock, not only to Nehru, but to the entire international society. The Indian military was unprepared and also unequipped. Both USA and the Soviet extended token help. Soviet was quite busy with the Cuban crisis, however soon after the problem subsided, President Kruschev did extend some help. American help was minimum, compared to the massive military help that was extended to Pakistan in 1954. On top of that, the Sandys - Rusk team visited India to hold talks in order to make India concede certain areas of

Kashmir to Pakistan, a claim that was squarely denied. Nehru stood firm with this faith in the five-point principle. The international community stood by him, as China withdrew under growing international pressure, fearing isolation and global antagonism. Nehru played his last masterstroke in international policy, as he turned the military defeat in a moral victory for India.

The Chinese invasion had far reaching effects on India's foreign policy. It forced Nehru to change his stance on international affairs. He realized that unmitigated goodwill was not necessary the way the business of foreign affairs was conducted. Nehru's dreams were more or less shattered. It was also a great eye-opener. It made India to see that it is important to strengthen one's military strength and not overtly depend on peaceful negotiations in matters of international affairs. The Chinese invasion was a shock to Nehru, almost shaking his idealistic foundation to the very base. Domestic problems also kept escalating, putting a great degree of mental and physical stress on Nehru.

Other Short Notes

The Servants of India Society The Servants of India Society was founded by Gokhale in 1905. About its mission he wrote; “The Servants of India Society will train man prepared to devote their lives to the cause of the country in a religious spirit and will seek to promote, by all constitutional means the national interests of the Indian people.” A member could be admitted to the Society only on the recommendation of the Council consisting of three ordinary members and the First Member (or President). Every member was required to take seven vows at the time of enrolment and had to undergo training for a period of five years. The branches of the Society were soon opened in Madras (1910), Nagpur (1911), Bombay (1911) and Allahabad (1913) and centres for works were subsequently established in Ambala, Cuttack and Kozhikode. The official organ of the Society “The Servants of India” was started in 1918 and continued upto 1939. Besides involving itself in social service and educational activities, the Society co-operated with the Congress in the political sphere and helped her in the collection of funds. The Society continued the mission of its founder, after his demise, and enjoyed the patronage of such renowned persons as Hriday Nath Kunzru, A.D. Mani, and in recent times of Lal Bahadur Shastri. Kumaran Asan and his Movement In this connection reference may be made to another movement in the south which has received scant attention. Sri Narayana Guru and Kumaran Asan (1873-1924) led a movement in Kerala which made a great impact on the people, awakened them from their slumber and revolutionized the life of a large number of people. This socio-economic movement never found a legitimate place, even as a footnote in the nationalist history of India, mainly because of the ignorance or lack of appreciation of the movement south of the Vindhya ranges. Romain Rolland, in his book “The Life of Ramakrishna” refers to the personality of this “Great Guru whose beneficent spiritual activity was exercised for more than 40 years in the State of Travancore over some million faithful souls”. He preached, “if one may say so, ajnana of action, a great intellectual

religious, having a lively sense of the people, and their social needs. It has greatly contributed to the uplifting of the oppressed classes in Southern India and its activities have in a measure been allied to those of Gandhi.” Asan’s poetry was an instrument and agent of the revolutionary movement and it has, therefore, to be studied against the historical circumstances which obtained in Kerala during those stirring years. He was a great social reformer and bellwether of a great social renaissance movement. The lower castes Cherumas, called ‘two-legged animals’. The Ezhevas and other depressed classes who had to pay “a tax for the hair he grew on his head, and each woman had to pay a breast tax.” Kumaran Asan, through his literary creations, effected a tremendous transformations in the intellectual horizon of Kerala, and paved the way for “the regeneration of the society and growth of political rights and liberties.” Asan was equally concerned with the freedom of the country but believed that this goal could be reached only by passing through stages of social emancipation and inter-caste harmony. 

Deoband Movement Similarly the Deoband Movement started by some of the Muslim Ulemas after the failure of the Outbreak of 1857, held that it was incumbent upon the Muslims to drive the British out of the country. Contrary to the views of the Aligarh School led by Sir Syed Ahmad Khan, the followers of Deoband School associated with the Congress in its struggle for freedom. 

Akali Movement While the Non-Co-operation Movement was still progressing and Gandhiji was in prison, a new wave of discontent spread in the Punjab due to the Akali agitation. The religio-political struggle of the Akalis primarily directed against the priests and the mahants eventually turned against the British and lasted for over 5 years (1920-1925). About 30,000 men and women courted arrest, 400 of them died and about 2,000 were wounded. The Congress gave active support to movement which led to political awakening in the Punjab and henceforward the Sikhs played a notable role in the country’s struggle for freedom. Though a martial race, the Sikhs too adopted the Congress creed of non-violent non-co-operation. In fact, the Akali movement took a turn as a struggle for the liberation of the country which brought all sections of the people, the Hindus, Sikhs and Muslims together and it helped them to form a united front against the foreign rulers. Babbar Akali Movement In the wake of the Akali Movement came the Babbar Akali Movement, an underground terrorist movement in 1921 mostly in the Jullundur Doab, the territory between Satluj and the Beas. Its aim was to overthrow the British Government by a campaign of murders and terrorism in the Punjab. They committed a number of acts of violence and fought pitched battles against the police. Many of them were killed in encounters, while out of 67 arrested, 5 were sentenced to death, 11 to transportation for life and 38 to various terms of imprisonment. The movement of

the Babbars was short-lived but because of its intensity, it set a noble examble of supreme sacrifice. 1923-24 was a critical period in the history of Indian nationalism. There was considerable deterioration in Hindu-Muslim relations and rise in communal tension leading to riots at some places. The power of the Muslim League had increased which obliged the nationalist Muslims to join hands to combat it. All-India Muslim Nationalist Party To counter the Muslim League programme against the Congress, the nationalist Muslims formed a party called the All- India Muslim Nationalist Party on 27 July 1929 with Abul Kalam Azad as President, Dr, Ansari as treasurer and T.A. K. Sherwani as Secretary. Its objective was to fight communalism and exhort Muslim to take their due share in India’s struggle for freedom. 

Khudai Khidmatgar Movement Khudai Khidmatgars was an organisation of the Pathans of the North-West Frontier Province which supported the Congress in its struggle for freedom. It was in September 1929 that Abdul Ghaffar Khan started the Frontier Provincial Youth League known as the Naujavan-i-Sarhad, the Khudai Khidmatgars were a body of volunteers forming part of the Youth League which was intended to improve the religious, financial and educational conditions of the people of the province. Perhaps due to its earlier association with the Communities its members wore Red Shirts but Abdul Ghaffar Khan came under the influence of Mahatma Gandhi and adopted the aims and objectives of the Congress in 1929. Since then this organisation took part in all the activities of the Congress and followed its programme and policies. Ahrar Movement The nationalist Muslims started another organisation called the All India Majlis-i-Ahrar-i-Islam in 1931 to work for the attainment of independence through constitutional means. Its followers supported the Congress and worked for the economic, educational and political advancement of Muslims. The influence of the Ahrars was, however, mostly confined to the province of Punjab. The total number of Ahrars, according to the official records, was not more than 3,000 in 1946. All Parties Muslim Unity Conference The Ulemas and the nationalist Muslims constituted in 1933 what is known as the All-Parties Muslim Unity Conference with the avowed objectives of respect for Islam and to strive for unity with other communities and to organise various sects of Islam to play their role in the country’s struggle for freedom. Its members included some followers of Jamiat-ul-Ulema-i-Hind. Shia community, and of the All-India Muslim Conference. Swarajya Party

 Meanwhile the reforms of 1919 had been put into effect and the legislative bodies had been enlarged. But there was a sharp difference of opinion among the Congress leaders over the question of participating in the Councils and other legislative bodies. Some of the important leaders such as C. R. Das and Motilal Nehru advocated “Council entry” for wrecking the Councils from within. The majority did not approve of it. Therefore the pre-Council group formed the Swarajya Party in 1923 with Deshbandhu C. R. Das as President and Motilal Nehru as Secretary. The new party contested the elections, they had some success in so far as they were able to convince the Government that the system of dyarchy introduced in the Provinces was unworkable. The main objective of wrecking the Councils from within, however, was not fulfilled and the influence of the Swarajya Party on Indian politics suffered a decline, especially after the death of C. R. Das in June 1925. It will be interesting to discuss in detail the rise and fall of this party which was, of course, an off-shoot of the Congress.

All India Communist Party The influence of the Communist ideas made itself felt in India shortly after the Russian Revolution in 1917. And as early as 1920 the Communist Party of the USSR decided “to take concrete measures to spread revolution in the East.” M.N. Roy a member of the Executive Committee of the Communist International was responsible for sending Indian communists trained in Russia to spread communist ideology in India and set up its centres. However his efforts met with no conspicuous success till the Communist Party of Britain took up the matter and sent some agents to India; Philip Spratt being the most important. By 1924 the Communist propaganda had made considerable headway. The British Government felt alarmed and instituted the Cawnpore (Kanpur) Conspiracy case against some of the prominent leaders including S.A. Dange, Muzaffar Ahmad, Shaukat Usmani and Nalini Gupta who were all convicted and sent to jail. However, within a few years the Communist leaders in India with the help of the agents from Britain reorganised the Party and defined its goal as the overthrow of the British Government in India. A Workers and Peasants Party was formed in the United Provinces and its branches were also opened in Bombay and Bengal besides several towns of U.P. The Trade Union formed under the auspices of the Communist Party continued to play an important role in demonstrations against the British Government. The main thesis of the Communist Party in 1930s aimed at a proletariat urban revolution to start with and once it was achieved to extend it to rural areas. This was to be achieved through the transformation of individual strikes such as those of peasants against rents, debts, etc. into All-India movement and spread revolutionary propaganda amongst the police and the army. By these means the Communists also worked for the overthrow of the British rule and achieve independence for India. The efforts of some of the Communist leaders as M.N. Roy to form a united front with congress leaders like Jawaharlal Nehru, Subhas Chandra Bose and Mahatma Gandhi for achieving Indian independence and the stiff opposition it encountered from others such as

Adhikari, P. C. Joshi is an interesting subject of study for detailed and critical discussion. However, a leftist united front could not be formed due to the loyalty of the CPI to the Communist International. The Communist policy of infiltration led to the resignation of such Congress socialists such as Masani, Ashok Mehta, Ram Manohar Lohia and Achyut Patwardhan. The Communist Party, however, continued to lend its support to the mass movements launched by the Congress till 1942 when it decided to call off its agitation due to involvement of Russian in the war in support of the Allies. However, as the confidential records of the Government of India reveal that it remained linked with the main currents of nationalism to the extent possible. It took her six months to change from its anti-war policy to its new pro-war line and even then it did not give up its demand of independence of India from British rule.

Radical Democratic Party A brief reference may be made here to the Radical Democratic Party formed by M.N. Roy in August 1940 after he left the Congress along with his followers. He believed that he would be able to convince the British Government to form coalition ministries by combining the anti-Congress elements in the various provinces. The war, he thought, would be prolonged and would thus leave the Britain exhausted. It would provide him with an opportunity to launch a mass movement and wrest power from the British. However “his strenuous efforts to rope in antiwar groups and parties failed and the confidential note of the Government described him as a ‘political adventurer’ who had grown from a romantic terrorist and anti-British agitator into an ardent communist and anti-imperialist and now into an anti-fascist.” He failed to persuade the Government to form coalition ministries but continued to help them in encouraging production by persuading the labourers not to go on strike.

Forward Bloc Soon after his resignation from the Presidentship of the Indian National Congress on 3 May 1939. Subhas Chandra Bose formed what is known as the Forward Bloc. Its main objective was attainment of complete independence and establishment of a modern socialist state, promoting social ownership and state control of large scale industrial production for economic development, freedom of worship, social justice and equal rights for individuals regardless of creed or sex. It became a party at its Nagpur session on 18 June, 1940 and attempted to form a left consolidated front but the Communist Party of India and the Congress Socialist Party did not join it. However, it collaborated with the All-India Kisan Sabha and was against any compromise with the British Government. In the then prevailing situation, it advocated collaboration with Italy. Germany and Japan to get rid of the imperialistic British rule.