A Modern history of India

-by Devwrat Dube(MS11015)

The history of India is the saga of emergence of India. While the ancient history of India forms the

rough draft on which polity, society, culture and economy could have been modelled after it is the

modern history that leads to the final shaping and borrowing of elements from outside the Indian

subcontinent in society, polity, a little bit in culture and mostly in economy.

The modern history of India is the story of an India in making – starting towards the fall of Mughal

emperor and continuing till Independence. The story after Partition & Independence till today may

be called a recent history of India in which Indians have had most of the control and the society and

polity have been democratic, at least in theoretical description.

The modern history itself can be divided into multiple phases where the country was actively in

making and the activity was physical – revolts, wars, mass uprisings etc. or the society was physically

dormant while all activity was concentrated in spirit such as the rise of Nationalist feelings, churning

of the ocean of knowledge leading to a sense of Identity as a country, mass enlightenment etc.

It is true that Independence of India can be viewed equally well as withdrawal of the British or rise of

India. Similarly, historians now seek to alternate their views on fall of the Mughal Empire as the rise

of new states along periphery. The commonality in both versions has been the economic self-

sufficiency of the peripheral states and loss of control from Delhi.

Phase 1: Mughal empire’s falls or Peripheral states’ Rise Starting from Aurangzeb’s time, the Mughal Empire was weakening because of the policies and

Deccan wars led by Aurangzeb. Following Aurangzeb’s death, Delhi suddenly faced loss of

leadership. The Mughal system of politics & economy was such that there was a defined hierarchical

system for everything. Money flowed in bottoms-up manner while orders flowed in reverse. Many

historians attribute the fall of empire to this system of governance. But this system of governance

also ensured that every representative of the state, namely the Nawabs or Dewans had a military of

their own and excess was to be reserved to be provided to the centre, when in need. Similarly, the

revenue generated from a region was partly used for the maintenance of the region and excess

flowed to Delhi for central reserves or other projects. This system could have led to the realisation

that each state was sufficient to maintain itself. But the daring move of seeking independence did

not happen unless Delhi was weakened in leadership. As Delhi weakened a wave of restructuring

came into being which led to successor states like those of Hyderabad, Bengal, Oudh and rebel

states of Marathas, of Rajputs and those of Sikhs.

It is important to realise that by this time India had the image of a golden bird and every giant power

wanted to draw water from the well and were considering coming to India for trade. But when they

came, either the system of governance was so radically different from theirs that they wanted to

take control of that or they were highly confident that the Industrial renaissance in Europe was,

according to them the modern modelling of labour society, Industries, trade laws and politics, which

they could introduce to India. Whichever may be the reason, and it’s difficult to deduce the correct

reason for there may be multiple correct answers to a historical question, all powers sought to

partnerships not just in trade but also in power with the local power centres.

But the power which was to stay and dominate was the British which set its foot in form of a

company rule. The company rule was established after the Battle of Plassey and that of Buxar.

The early generation of historians following the colonial rule had an English bent of mind. Even if

they were working independently, they had been corrupted in education to affirm to the British idea

that India was in a dark age and colonisation of India was the boon that India deserved. The bent of

mind of Early Indian Historians was English. They focussed on religious policies& administrative

policies of the rulers to understand the dynamics of a state. The fall of Mughal Empire according to

these historians was ascribed to Aurangzeb’s policies & campaign in Deccan part.

Another school of thought that started expressing its views at the time of Independence was the

Marxist school which subscribed to the idea of economic exploitation of the masses was the chief

reason for the fall of empire.

Note: Explanation of Jagirdari & Mansabdari system and their analysis is not done here.

Yet another school of thought was the Aligarh school of thought who held administrative &

Economic crisis originating after the Deccan campaign as the only reason but also affirms to the Dark

Age theory.

Much later historians have questioned the Dark Age theory and instead explained the economic

crisis of Delhi and the economic realignment within India that led to the local powers asserting

themselves against the centre.

Phase 2: Company Raj & Dominion of India All the European powers came to India disguised as merchants. The Dutch East India Company was

the first MC in the world and the first company to issue stocks. Interestingly, although company rule

began after the battle of Plessey in 1757, the English East India Company was formed on January 1st,

1600 AD. The English East India Company was first amongst many European East India companies.

The company had been trading with permission from Jahangir since 1612 and was granted the

Diwani rights in 1764. In 1773, Warren-Hastings was appointed as the first governor general. Soon

after, they set up their own judicial system.

The company was choosing carefully the persons and institutions which it wanted to continue or

discontinue in the mercantile economy as well as governance. Until the first uprising of 1857, the

Indian industries were destroyed and Indian market was completely a subsidiary of British market

catering to the world. The colonies of company underwent transformations, mostly economic.

Soon after the primary agenda of the company was done perhaps they started diverting attention to

communication, administration, & education to set a stronger foot in Indian soil. By this time India

was a crucial part of the world economy and so administrative control of the economy was a good

aid to have in hand.

The news of corruption of the company had also been spreading in England and the company spread

rumours of them being liberalisers of the masses and not the conquerors of the state.

Phase 3: Rise of Indian Nationalism

1857 which marks the birth of nationalist feelings for the first time pan India, was a multi-faceted

event. It was and continues to be interpreted differently by different scholars. Even during the revolt

the interpretation among the masses varied. A lot of the description of 1857 comes up in this

discussion as the immediate history of Indians who participated in the movement and revolts to

follow for next 9 decades.

For the imperial power, the event was a proof of challenges of the future and forced them to devise

mass scale administrative and policy changes while for the masses, it was a new wave of being

Indian. All sections of the society participated, directly or indirectly by showing their opposition to

the regime. Even a section of society in the English world appraised the movement and Karl Marx

too praised the Hindu-Muslim unity displayed in opposition to the regime.

According to Veer Damodar Savarkar, it was the Indian war of Independence and therefore it

inspired the first generation of Indian nationalists. The movement of 1857 itself cut across religious

or regional or economic boundaries to unite the nation for the first time since the advent of

company Raj. The days of the company Raj were over. Although Indians could not remove the

company, British government was also looking for an opportunity to gain India and 1857 was the

perfect time to declare the company obsolete and get full access to all its territories.

Some scholars also see the war as a war between the existing feudal system in which the worn out

feudal lords who wished that the past come back sponsored and spearheaded the civilian revolts

against the mercantile economic control of the nation by the company. Those who died were mostly

poor but those who would have benefitted in either side winning were the rich- the new rich & the

former rich. Conceptually & ideologically, the war was rooted in the past. The popular base of the

revolt was that of the peasant and the dominated classes who lived with the mentality of being

continually dominated. For them the revolt was about restructuring the society. Earlier the feudal

lords & upper castes were the masters subjected to no exploitation but they exploited the

dominated classes. Now, during the company raj, they were exploited by the company and a good

part of this exploitation was passed on socially & economically to the dominated classes worsening

their condition.

The leaders of the movement who were the new exploited class wanted to restore the past and so

was the voice of the rebellion but the dominated classes sought to restore a new order which would

not discriminate them. It would not only be better than the present but even better than the past.

They were looking for more than restoration. This was not the voice but the spirit of the rebellion.

In my humble opinion such confusing stands occur on all grounds – economic, political, social, with

regards to the understanding about the aims and objective of the rebellion amongst those involved.

The revolt itself had two strands – the military rise & mass rebellions but the two strands were

intertwined & strangled, not just in spirit but in plans & actions. The foundations of the company Raj

had shaken and a few pillars fallen. Moreover, the imagery of the company Raj as harbingers of the

modern age was forever replaced by Nationalist imagery in all parts of the Nation.

The 1857 was the spark of nationalism catalysed by many factors that led to its deeper

understanding among scholars and approach and popularisation among the masses.

Within a decade of the war Dadabhai Naoroji had developed the drain theory which in simple terms

for the masses meant – “British are looting us”. At this point, the term British refers to the crown

which has taken over the control from the East India Company. Important contributions on this topic

were also made by M G Ranade & R C Dutt. Further, nationalism could easily spread because the

technologies of communication & connectivity of different parts by technological means,

development of Roads & railways were uniting the nation. Ever since Indians had grasped the Idea of

English education, most people who could afford expensive education were trained in England or

other parts of Europe & were grasping the idea of Nationalism better, which they would spread

among the masses later. The development of press & literature and the curiosity of motives of

British behind the actions had led to further awakening of a middle class that had gained a sense of

identity following the war. The few reminiscent of the new order established by the war and other

socio-political reforms had given a hope to Indians that an Indian society without British would be

better. The past was being glorified both as genuine scholarly attempts & as propaganda. The way

the British crown responded was also different the approaches of the company because the crown

was believably mightier than the company and its repressive policies were more radical.

The Nationalist movement was gaining a structure and the organisations that hoped to complete

smooth transfer of power were being formed. Such organisations had the inherent weakness that

they were being registered in the better cities of the time like Madras, Bombay, Calcutta, even in

London.

But the one organisation that was to spearhead the movement was formed by A O Hume in 1885-

The Indian National Congress. The congress however did not work radically. It was a constitutional

organisation & believed in constitutional methods of achieving freedom to avoid a state of anarchy.

Their idea of independence was progressive viz. getting more Indians in govt. jobs, getting more &

increasing representation in government, having a say in policy making, peaceful protesting &

solution through dialogues. Their most important contribution has been the defence of civil rights

and campaigning for administrative reforms. Initially, Congress was only an elite anglicised class

contributing to opinion but not leading the struggle.

In about 1905, a section of the congress could see the light as their demands were being turned

down and these were called the extremists. Since the congress had been existent for about 2

decades, it had gained some popularity & confidence among the masses and could lead a struggle,

as the extremists believed. Another important event was the partition of Bengal to which congress

was opposed and a great majority of those who were to be affected were discontented with the

decision.

In 1906, dada bhai Naoroji introduced the idea of Swaraj & struggle by means of Swadeshi

movements & boycott of foreign goods. It was also realised that a deeper penetration into the

society was needed as a result of which samitis were formed at lower levels.

Another event to be appreciated is the resulting Hindu-Muslim divide and formation of All India

Muslim League which fractionated and divided the voices against british. The Muslims had by now

been fascinated with the idea that the British were just while the congress would work against them

if it won. This was a reason of failure of some of the congress movements.

The second decade of 20th century was a decade of reforms and brain-storming within congress, the

decade of the first world war where Britain’s backbone had been wrecking, that of Khilafat

movement & coming of Gandhi.

When Gandhi & congress joined hands, Gandhian methods of struggle filled the gap between

Congress and the masses transforming congress into a respectable body that British had to deal with

seriously & Gandhi was the ideological leader and coordinator of the struggles. On the streets were

the masses, in the court often Gandhi and good debaters & trained lawyer nationalists, while within

the government were people like Nehru & Jinnah.

India was really being handcrafted and more and more people were being disillusioned and

awakened to join the struggles. Sentiments were soaring & local leaders were rising. India was being

involved as a nation in the movement.

The attitude of the British following the First World War & removal of the caliph of turkey almost

stuck like final nail in the coffin of the empire but the empire was able to handle the crisis.

It was only when the Second World War stuck and the British could no longer afford to continue and

perhaps saw no point in continuing, the British withdrew.

Submitted by:

DEVWRAT DUBE

MS 11015