Introduction
History is a matter of perspective, meaning two true stories can be told about one event. The mark of a true history scholar is the ability to rise above the partisan perspectives that create a historiographical debate to arrive at the factual truth about the subject. This quest is, however, never easy because perspective has been at the center of most available material about history. Unlike in science where an experiment can be done again so that the truth or otherwise can be established, history abounds unchanged and unchangeable. Only a keener literature review can seek to separate fact from fiction and balance from bias. “The making of India” is one of the most controversial statements in modern history, with the debate lying on from which perspective the issue is being looked at (Ahmad, 2005).
From one perspective, India was one under British rule but was divided before and immediately after. Yet again, history shows that India was a flourishing community of powerful city-states in the medieval period when The British Isles consisted only of a collection of barbarian societies. This begs the question of whether or not the British made India and if British colonialism lay the foundation for modern India which is moving to become one of the most flourishing communities in the world. Was India a hapless victim of British Imperialism and suffered misfortune for the sake of the prosperity of the British Empire. This research paper seeks to establish that India was both a beneficiary and victim of British rule since benefits and misfortunes of colonialism are simply two sides of the same coin.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
History of British Colonialism
It is important to state from the very advent that the colonization of India did not begin with the British. India had always been an important target for European powers due to her important position in the East and also the richness of commodities that came from the subcontinent (Ahmad, 2005). The Portuguese, the Dutch, the Spaniards and even Norwegians have left a footmark in several parts of the subcontinent. India, however, stands tall amongst the colonial powers of India because it created a semblance of oneness to the subcontinent and also because it was among the very last. After British rule, which ended soon after the Second World War, India has remained independent (Chatterjee, 1995). It also continues to take its place as a global superpower as well as one of the most populated places on earth. It is also worthy of notice that immediately upon the end of colonial rule, India disintegrated into many nations, key among them being India and Pakistan (Ahmad, 2005; Chatterjee, 1995). These two are divided by religious affiliation and have always been technically at war with each other.
Overview of British Colonial Rule in India
The control of Britain over India can be divided into four major segments referred to as the presidency towns, the Presidencies of British India, the Provinces of India and finally the Indian Empire under Emperor Victoria of India (Home, 2013). The latter is based on the fact that Queen Victoria of India after the total subjugation and unification of the Indian subcontinent decree it to be an empire with herself as the Empress (Ahmad, 2005). The path from the motley collection of towns into a series of presidencies, then provinces and finally an empire also marks the struggle between Indians and their colonial masters from the advent of British colonialism to its end.
The Presidency Towns
The initial contact of India and Britain with a colonial perspective can be traced back to 1612 when the East India Company began to set up factories in different parts of the subcontinent of India (Scott, 1995). At the time, the concept of India as it is today or as anything united could not even be fathomed. It is important to notice that India is a vast land made up of many different countries under different leaders. A good way of looking at India would be to look at continental Europe whose size has a congruency with the Indian subcontinent. Many of the tribal groupings and kingdoms in India were as large as the kingdoms of Europe such as Spain and France. Some were smaller just as in Europe while others were exponentially larger (Scott, 1995). Further, the linguistic and cultural differences were immense, again, just as in Europe. In the same way that the Portuguese were absolutely different in almost all ways from the Croats, save for being on the same continent, this is how the different kingdoms and section of India were. The East India Company, therefore, could not have been said to set up shop in a country called India but rather within a collection of towns in a wide place called the Indian subcontinent (Chatterjee, 1995). The setting of trading stations and factories was made through permission from Mughal emperors who ruled over different parts of India. During this section of Indian history, the British East India Company was just part of the investors in India and stood in competition with the Netherlands and France (Scott, 1995). Among the tangible major investment and commercial centers included Calcutta, Madras, and Bombay (Home, 2013). At this time, the British were seemingly only interested in commerce, not rule and were generally condoned.
The Presidencies of British India
Within the course of the 17 th century, the tentacles of the British East India Company spread deeper into Indian society and a semblance of rule began to be realized. They were in the form of three principal presidencies. The first was the Madras presidency which took root in 1640. This was followed by the Bombay Presidency in 1687 within which the headquarters if the company lay, in the town of Surat (Scott, 1995). Finally, there was the Bengal Presidency that came soon after in 1690. This meant that greater section of India was continually falling under the same control and rule. During the 17 th century, the control of India was mainly hampered by the fight for control of the continent that took place between two European powers Britain and Norway. Fortunately or unfortunately for India, depending on the perspective of history adopted, the two powers united as one when Dutch prince William of Orange rose to the throne of England. From then on, a singular British front was made in taking control of India (Scott, 1995).
In the 18 th century, the power of the East India Company in the subcontinent continued to soar funneled by two separate occurrences. Due infighting, which some may associate to the British philosophy of divide and rule, some of the most powerful empires of India began to fail (Chatterjee, 1995).
Ruling families disintegrated enabling the trading company to take up a more functional role in ruling different parts of India. Further, the Persians invaded India in 1739 but were repulsed by the trading company. The appearance of the company as a powerful military force and a savior of India helped cement its position in power. The feat was once again repeated with an Afghani invasion in the 1760s that was again repelled by the trading company. The more the company rose in influence within India, the more India became one (Chatterjee, 1995). This increased the ability of the trading company to control affairs in different aspects of Indian life. More importantly, it enhanced the company’s ability to trade, making it more powerful and extremely rich.
From a local perspective, a major conflict arose when the Nawab of Bengal, with the help of British rivals, the French opposed the trading company operations in Bengal (Lawson, 2014). A major armed conflict arose between the forces of the company and those of the Nawab. This was also a proxy war between the British and the French. The conflict culminated in the decisive Battle of Plassey where the Nawab was definitively beaten. This expanded the activities of the trading company to Bengal making it dominant almost across the continent. The victory over the Nawab was of great significance for the British as well as for India (Chatterjee, 1995). For a start, all the other leaders and rulers in India were carefully watching the conflict and would have rebelled in turn if weaknesses were seen in the company. Secondly, the French were offering themselves as assistance for any ruler who wanted to rebel against the British. This was a test of the efficacy of French assistance. Had the Nawab prevailed, there might have never been a unified India as the subcontinent would have ended up divided between the many European powers. As it turned out, the British was and the path to a unified India under British rule continued. Puppet leaders were installed in many parts of India, leaving the company largely in charge (Chatterjee, 1995).
A vicious taxation regimen was also introduced by the British who were now generally in charge of most of India. The taxation and harshness of the company would lead to other rebellions soon after, key among them the Anglo–Mysore Wars between the company and the Kingdoms of Mysore. This wars took place within the last three decades of the 18 th century. Mysore rulers Hyder Ali and his successor Tipu Sultan fought hard but by then several parts of India were being led by puppet leaders under the trading company (Chatterjee, 1995). The Mysore, therefore , found themselves facing the British on two fronts and two of their neighbors on two other fronts. In 1799, Tipu Sultan was killed in what came to be called the Third Mysore War and the rebellion ended. By the end of the 18 th century, therefore, the company has near full charge over India.
The Provinces and the Indian Empire
The harsh rule of the company continued and this enabled a wider expansion of British control over the Indian subcontinent. There were still pockets of French and Portuguese segments within the large continent but the British were generally in control ( Marshall , 2014). By the 1850s, most of India was subdivided into several continents all under the control of the company. The power and wealth of the company attracted the attention of the British government raising the intent of annexing India as a part of the rapidly growing British Empire. In 1958, after the advent of a major rebellion in Bengal, the government passed the Government of India Act 1858 (Chatterjee, 1995). Under it, the government and the crown took over rule over India, making it a substantive part of the United Kingdom. Later in 1876, India was declared to be an Empire of its own called the Indian Empire. This title, however, was mainly ceremonial since Queen Victoria was also named the Indian Empire. To avoid continuous rebellions, India was curved up into several regions, mainly based on ethnicity. (Chatterjee, 1995)
Local leaders were appointed and allowed a high level of autonomy over what happened on the ground subject to their allegiance to their Emperor Victoria. The new strategy was very effective and by the 20 th century, 77% of the entire population in the Indian subcontinent was under British Rule (Chatterjee, 1995). Most were it was held under the Indian Empire including parts of Burma and French Indochina. Other parts, however, such as Sri Lanka were held as independent colonies. The British held on to their rule of India until the Second World War. The British Empire was fading and for the first time in many years, the British Isles themselves were under threat. Under the promise of independence, India assisted the British in substance and also with many soldiers (Chatterjee, 1995). After the war, the Indians pushed hard for independence which was unceremoniously granted in 1947, leaving a subcontinent in chaos as the mainly Hindu India separated from the mainly Muslim Pakistan.
Summary on Impact on Politics and Economy
While sticking with the two perspectives to gain a balanced analysis of the situation, it must be said that even without the British, India would still have prospered economically. It must also be said that having relative peace because of British rule after India became an Empire did enable massive and expeditious economic growth. The economy of Indian during and after the colonial period is also closely tied to the political scene within the subcontinent ( Marshall , 2014) . From a political perspective, India began as aforesaid as a motley collection of chieftains and kingdoms. Some were tiny and could be easily overrun by the colonists while others were massive and have to be traded with until the British East India Company came of age. The trading company gradually replaced the rulers with puppet leaders who had no authority over their domains. It was at this stage that politically, Britain had the most control over India. At this stage also India was merely an instrument for the economic growth of the United Kingdom. The company also collected massive taxes from the populace ( Marshall , 2014) . The political and economic condition changed with the advent of the Indian Empire. A level of autonomy was allowed to local leaders and Britain changed tactics from direct rule to strategic manipulation. India at this juncture contributed a lot to the growth of the economy of the United Kingdom but during this time, India’s economy also grew and the land prospered. In a statement, both economically and politically, British colonialism in India was at best a mixed blessing.
The advent of modernity
Many terms can be used to define modernity, key among them development and contemporariness. It can be defined as moving ahead socially, politically, and economically so as to catch up with those who are way ahead (Bryant, 2006). Proceeding with the balanced approach to history, a further investigation into the subject of modernity is important. Before the advent of the industrial revolution, westernization and modernization could not have been taken to mean the same thing. The western world in general and particularly Britain could not have been considered the most developed (Bryant, 2006). History, for example, records that when European Jesuit missionaries went to Japan for the first time at around the 17 th century, the Japanese correctly called them savages because their social behavior was inferior to those of Japan (Eisenstadt, 2000). But, after the advent of the industrial revolution, riches changed Britain and from then on, it could be correctly be said that engaging with the British could modernize any nation on earth.
Modernity in Education and Social Life
Education and modern life have been combined herein because the two cannot be considered as mutually exclusive. It would be impossible to change a social system without some form of education and it is not possible for education not to create social change. When the British East India Company landed in India, they did not feel obliged to teach Indians or get involved in their social life. The company was purely a capitalist organ and all they cared for was economic benefits (Bryant, 2006). The only social issues they may have changed were those that would result in an economic gain. For example, the establishment of a harsh tax regime would automatically reduce leisure tom and establish a work focused society. The Indians, however, observed their visitors and emulated them in some behavior and mannerisms. It was not until formal education began that actual social changes were perceived.
Even before the trading company came, Indians still had education systems since they were an organized and civilized society. The Muslims has their Madrassa that mainly focused on religious teachings (Chatterjee & Riley, 2001). The Hindus and secular communities had an informal education that taught the basics of life. This means that among the strict Hindus, education would mainly be based on the specific case that an individual was born into. The Charter Act of 1813 directed the trading company to invest exponentially in education and the company obliged. This was the advent of formal education in many parts of India and the beginning of social modernization. The communities realized cultural differences in issues such as the caste system, gender equity, and the Christian faith. These resulted in major changes in the culture and social norms within the educated elite. Some of those who got a good education also sought to alleviate the unfair practices that adversely affected the community (Chatterjee & Riley, 2001). Through education, India also adopted English leisure activities such as sports. To date, cricket, an English invention is one of the most popular sporting activity in India. Even the nations that broke away cannot shake their love for the game.
Transport and Communication
The trading company brought many improvements in the area of transport and communication but only to the extent that the same had a commercial benefit to the company itself. The primary intent of the company was a trade . To effectuate the same, it was paramount to build a good road network and also a telegraph and postage system. The first telegraph became operational between Calcutta to Agra in 1853 and the network grew exponentially after that (Lawson, 2014). This was developed in areas where the company had an interest but they also helped the local community. The industrial revolution came with a massive demand for commodities and raw materials leading to a need for a better infrastructure. This led to the erection of one of the largest signs of modernity, the railway. The first railway line stretched from for 32 kilometers between Bombay to Thane (Lawson, 2014). When the British government took over from the trading company, it bought the East Indian Railway Company and made an extensive railway network in India. Just over twenty years, over 4000 kilometers of the railway had been set up. This was mainly done because extreme affluence had come through the industrial revolution and British Bankers and investors were eager for investment opportunities.
Modernization of the Economy
The traditional economy in India was localized with production being centered in one place. With the economic changes that came with modernized commerce, production was centralized or removed in India. A good example was cloth. India was a great producer of cotton and silk with the fiber yarned in the same locality where the raw materials were produced as sold as finished products (Lawson, 2014). The industrial revolution changed this so that even a cotton grower could find it cheaper to buy cloth than making it. This reduced India to a producer of raw materials and a buyer of finished product.
Impact of colonization on Indian identity
India can be said to have entered into colonialism as a homogeneous society without a singular identity save for the fact that they came for the same subcontinent. At the ends of colonialism, the British left a homogeneous society that could not wait to separate. Over half a century later, Indian and Pakistan, the two main offshoots of the colony still fight with segments of their populaces who want more autonomy ( Marshall , 2014) . It cannot, however, be said that during the pendency of colonialism the identity of India did not change. The essence of homogeneity that the British found was very different from the one they left. But try as they could, the British and also the Indians could never forge a unified state in India with a populace that could identify themselves as one. At all material times, India was always divided. At the beginning, Indian identity was all about specific regions and specific religions ( Marshall , 2014) . Within this religions there would be other specific identities. Without modern transport and communication, many Indian societies may not even have been aware of the existence of others. The land was also divided into autonomous communities. Among the Muslims, a religious identity existed as one entity. The Hindus were different as within them were various divisions based on caste. This is a form of aristocracy where some members of the community are considered as more important than others. A majority of Hindus were outcasts , lowest caste ( Marshall , 2014) . Each caste identified itself clearly as the caste position was perpetual from generation to generation.
Colonialism came and began changing this form of identity. An awareness of who the community was as Indians began to develop based on the fact that they suffered the same ills from their colonial masters. This began to forge them together into a formal society with a real chance at having an identity as Indians. The only real division came when it came to religion. This was also not absolute because education was beginning to create a form of equality and non-discrimination within the caste system. Cohesion and a singularized identity would not have augured well for the British East India Company so it employed the tried and test formula of divide and rule ( Marshall , 2014) . As different parts arose to fight the company, massive divisions would emerge pitting brother against brother, community against community and kingdom against kingdom. India was getting unified against the British but this was quickly countered and division sowed.
The advent of the Indian Empire saw another opportunity for the renewal of a unified Indian identity. Unity, oneness and a common identity was never the intent of the British. This is clear in the fact that although Queen Victoria was the Queen of the United Kingdom, India would not become a singular segment of the Kingdom or even a kingdom on its own. Instead, it was forged into an empire ( Marshall , 2014) . Simply put, it was designed to remain a motley collection of ethnic groups, only unified by a foreign monarch. The Indians were being encouraged to remain divided and divided they remained. Another cause for the lack of an Indian that could identify itself as a unified state was religions. Immediately the British left, Muslims made a beeline for Pakistan as the Hindus tried their best to leave. India remains with a varied identity and never became one.
Through the entire process, the very fabric of each and every segment of Indian culture changed in a way as and when they came into contact with the British and as they continued interacting with them. The division amongst the Indians may have been fueled by the British but it was never based on the British. The main basis of Indian Identity lay in their culture, kingdoms, and mannerisms as aforesaid (Woodward, 1991). The process of colonization changed the specific identity each segment if the Indian society in two main ways. Some segments of the society changed absolutely and adopted western culture, mannerisms, and identity. Many of them even dropped their Indian names and acquired English family names, more so in the urban centers. This was very common among the outcasts who were eager to evade their identity as such. The second change relates to those who acquired a western education and some parts of its social life but never abandoned traditional affiliations. There emerged westernized Hindus, westernized Muslims, westernized Buddhists, and other community members who remained loyal to their native identity but adopted some western mannerisms. This was the advent of hybrid identity (Woodward, 1991).
Hybrid Modernity
To better understand hybrid modernity, it would be necessary to look wider than just India itself and look at how the wider world reacted to the concept of modernity. According to Eisenstadt, (2000), the initial concept of globalization was based on modernization. The culture, social norms and characteristics of Europeans spread across the entire world because of colonization among other reasons. A careful evaluation of the entire concept of hybrid modernity can be arrived at by evaluating three geographical areas that took modernity in three very different ways. The first one is the USA which absolutely embraced modernity and some instances even exceeded Europe in the same (Eisenstadt, 2000). The second is India which can be considered as the textbook example of hybrid modernity. Finally, there is Japan which can be said to have declined westernized modernization, accepting an only trade from the Europeans. A look at the USA and Japan would enable a better understanding of the hybrid modernity of India.
The USA was not per se colonized, although it was initially referred to as the 13 colonies. At least not in the way that Africa and India were. For the US, many Europeans crossed the Atlantic with no intention of coming back. They then pushed the native population inland, killing a number of them actively through war and passively through infections. By the time the colonies were taking shape, the colonial masters and the colonies shared a common heritage. Within these colonies, modernity was welcomed with both hands because it was also part of the heritage of the colonists (Eisenstadt, 2000). In many ways, Americans in the colonies were different in character and mannerisms from the Europeans but even in their differences lay congruency. A careful analysis of an American and a European at the advents of the 20 th and 21 st centuries will reveal more similarities than differences. If one does not talk and be betrayed be accentuation, one can be mistaken for the other.
One the other extreme lies the Japanese, a land has been famous for keeping a distance from the rest of the world. Japan had opened up to the Western world in the 16 th century then quickly retreated. It then opened itself up again in the 19 th century and the western world moved in to trade with them and also seek to share their culture and faith with the Japanese. At the initial contact in the 16 th century, the Japanese evaluated the western culture and found it to be essentially savage in nature. They had a well-established culture, high levels of hygiene, a great government system and a sound educational system. They thought the westerner untidy and uncultured. Although the Japanese did not reject modernity in total, they mainly retained their culture and only borrowed a little from the west (Eisenstadt, 2000).
India lies in between these extremes. As indicated earlier, some Indians, more so those greatly disadvantaged by their culture were quick to adopt the western way. Affluent leaders and those who took pride in their way of life, however, were not wholly impressed by western modernization (Chatterjee & Riley, 2001). They carefully studied it, picked what they felt would be good for them and left what they did not like. For example, a Hindu person could consider having an education and take up a white collar job such as in the legal profession. The person would then start a family through a combination of Indian and western cultures. The wedding may be done in church, the followed by a traditional ceremony soon after. Within the life of that person, some borrowed elements of western modernity against a background of a sound Indian culture (Giddens, 1991). This is the essence of a hybrid modernity.
Conclusion
The British came, initially traded, later exploited, afterward ruled and finally abruptly left India. They found a motley collection of peoples grouped into chieftains, kingdoms and even a few empires across a region as large as Europe itself. When they left, India remained as two giants, India and Pakistan, divided sharply based on ethnicity and religions and at loggerheads and threatening to break up into many more nations (Woodward, 1991). These two giants remain at war. The British must be given credit for forging the two giants from a collection of diverse peoples. Further, the British also brought with them many positive changes that have made it possible for India to rise today into a global economic force. They brought educations, manufacturing industries, and massive infrastructure. They also brought change to millions of outcasts within the Hindu religion who had been made to believe that they were lesser human beings. It must be indicated that the British impact in India was not all positive. The British, more so during the times of the East India Trading Company did plunder India of many resources and raw materials as they also charged exorbitant taxes. The benefit that India got from this relationship pales in significance when compared to the benefits that the British got. It cannot, however, be said that India never benefited.
References
Ahmad, A. (2005). The making of India. Social Scientist, 33 (11/12). 3-13
Bryant, J. M. (2006). The West and the rest revisited: Debating capitalist origins, European colonialism, and the advent of modernity. The Canadian Journal of Sociology , 31 (4), 403-444
Chatterjee, N., & Riley, N. E. (2001). Planning an Indian modernity: The gendered politics of fertility control. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society , 26 (3), 811-845
Chatterjee, P. (1993). The nation and its fragments: Colonial and postcolonial histories (Vol. 11). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press
Eisenstadt, S.N. (2000). Multiple Modernities . The MIT Press on Behalf of American Academy of Arts & Sciences, 129(1), 1-29.
Giddens, A. (1991). The consequences of Modernity. Cambridge, United Kingdom. PP. 16-29 & 100-145.
Home, R. (2013). Of planting and planning: The making of British colonial cities . New York City: Routledge
Lawson, P. (2014). The East India Company: A History . London: Routledge
Marshall, P. (2014). The British presence in India in the 18th Century. BBC, http://www.mrtredinnick.com/uploads/7/2/1/5/7215292/the_british_presence_in_india_in_the_18th_century.pdf
Scott, D. (1995). Colonial governmentality. Anthropologies of Modernity , 23-49.
Woodward K. (2004) Questioning identity, gender, class, ethnicity. New York: Routledge
