MODERNMODERN INDIAINDIA Add : D-108, Sec-2, Noida (U.P.), Pin - 201 301 Email id : [email protected] Call : 09582948810, 09953007628, 0120-2440265 CONTENTS 1. Evolution of British Paramountcy over Princely States 3 2. British Colonialism in India 6 3. British Economic Policies and their Impact 11 4. The Revolt of 1857 15 5. Rise and Growth of Indian National Movement 22 6. Early Nationalists and Militant Nationalists 25 7. Partition of Bengal 28 8. Home Rule Leagues 31 9. Emergence of Gandhi 33 10. Non-cooperation Movement (1921 - 1922) 36 11. Militant Revolutionary Terrorism 40 12. Simon Commission 42 13. Civil Disobedience Movement (1930-34) 44 14. Quit India Movement 50 15. Indian National Army 53 16. Naval Mutiny of 1946 55 17. British Policy of Divide and Rule 57 18. Partition of India 58 19. Important Legislations 61 20. Regeneration, Reforms and Renaissance in India 65 21. Development of Education in British India 69 22. Trade Union Movement in India 71 23. Peasant Movements in Modern India 75 24. The States People's Movements 80 25. Rise and Growth of Left Wing within the Congress 84 1 EVOLUTION OF BRITISH 1 PARAMOUNTCY OVER PRINCELY STATES GENERAL SURVEY son who became his successor. During Dalhousie's period, it so happened that many rulers of dependent By 1855-56, the British Empire in India was firmly Indian states died without leaving a male heir to the established. Major portions of the country were under throne. Dalhausie annexed Satara (1848), Jaitpur and direct British rule. In other areas, Indian rulers were Sambalpur (1849), Bhagat (1850), Udaipur (1852), completely dependent on the British. In short, the Nagpur (1853), and Jhansi (1854). Besides, the adopted British had emerged as the paramount power in India. son of the Peshwa Nana Sahib was refused the This British paramountcy was established essentially pension which the Peshwa had been receiving. by two methods: (a) by outright annexation through Similarly, after the death of the Nawab of the wars, and (b) by brining the Indian states within the Carnatic, his relative was denied the pension. The Subsidiary System which often led to their annexation growing fears of the Indian rulers were further on one pretext or the other. Mysore and Sindh are the aggravated by the deposition of Wajid Ali Shah, the best examples of outright annexation through wars. last Nawab of Avadh, and its annexation on the But it was the latter method which was frequently charge of mismanagement. used by the British for establishing their paramountcy. Under the 'system of Subsidiary Alliance', as What was the essence of the British evolved by Lord Wellesley, the Indian rulers paid for paramountcy? the maintenance of British troops whileONICLE the British were in no way responsible for theONICLEONICLEONICLE administration, The rapid strides with which British paramountcy including maintenance of law and order, within the had progressed in India since 1757 invariably affected protected state. The increased expenditure on account the destiny of the Indian states that had arisen on the of the maintenance of British troops was met by the ruins of the Mughal Empire. Their relation with the Indian rulers by levying heavy taxes on the peasants. CADEMY CADEMYCADEMYCADEMYBritish varied according to changing political Assured by a sense of security, the rulers became conditions and personal views and ambitions of the indifferent to the problems of the people which led to different Governor-Generals. Yet the conviction which financial crises and breakdown of law andAAA order. developed in the late 18th century and continued up Whenever this happened in a state, the British were to the early 20th century that the governance of the quick to use it as an excuse for annexing the state. whole of India directly or indirectly by the British Thus theCHRCHRCHR Subsidiary System created conditions for was part of a preordained system which had a subsequentCHR annexations. considerable influence in shaping British policy The British also found other excuses for towards the Indian states. We can examine this annexation. One such excuse was the application of evolution of British paramountcy over princely states the Doctrine of Lapse which was more frequently in three broad phases. During the first phase, lasting resorted to by Lord Dalhousie, though some others from 1757 to 1813, the British followed the policy of had done it before him. According to this doctrine, if Ring Fence. In the second phase, covering the period an Indian king died without his own son to succeed from 1813 to 1858, its policy was known as the policy him, his state wasIASIASIAS to be annexed by the British. The of Subordinate Isolation. The third phase, extending Indian tradition provided that if a king had no son, from 1858 to 1947 witnessed the policy of Subordinate he could adopt his or his wife's near relation as his Union. ©Chronicle IAS Academy 3 POLICY OF RING-FENCE (1757-1813) by compelling their rulers to sign Subsidiary treaties with it. The Indian states, without exception, were What was it? prevailed upon to accept the Company as the During this period, the British, as Lee-Warner paramount power in India. They were required to says, endeavoured as far as possible to live within a give either money or territory, so that the Company Ring Fence, and beyond that they avoided intercourse could maintain a Subsidiary force either in the with the chiefs as the English Company was not yet concerned state or outside it for its protection. The strong enough to interfere in the internal affairs of concerned state could no longer appoint non-English the Indian states. More specifically the English Europeans in its service. It could not conduct any Company neither had the strength nor the resources foreign relations except through the British to defeat the Indian states. It was in fact only one of government. In all its dispute with other states, it had the important powers in India; the Marathas, the to accept British arbitration. In turn, the Company Nizams, the French, etc. being the other powers. promised the territorial integrity of the state. In Warren Hastings, confronted with the task of practice, however, all the Indian states entering into safeguarding British territories against the subsidiary alliance, and being dependent on the encroachments of the Maratha and the militant rulers Company for self-protection, began to suffer from all of Mysore, generally followed the policy of a Ring- the evils of 'dual government' like those which had Fence. The Pitt's India Act of 1784 even laid down destroyed Bengal between 1765 and 1722. Regarding that the Home Government should not approve of pitfalls of the Subsidiary system, Sir Thomas Munro the intervention of her officers in India in the internal rightly remarked that, it is the natural tendency to affairs of the Indian states. After the battle of Buxar, render the government of every country in which it Avadh lay at the mercy of the British but they did not exists weak and oppressive, to extinguish all annex it. After the Rohilla war; Warren Hastings honourable spirits among the higher grades of society, conferred the conquered territories on the Nawab of to degrade and impoverish the whole people. Avadh instead of retaining them; the First Ango- The nature and significance of this phase of the Marathaa war ended in the restoration of the status evolution of British paramountcy over princely states quo by the Treaty of Salbai and the four Mysore wars is euphemistically brought out by Colonel Luard when benefited the allies of the British (Marathas and he says, "This period is by far the most important in Nizam) more than the British themselvesONICLE at least in the history of the relationship of the states to the the short term. ONICLEONICLEONICLEBritish government, step by step, solely against its Yet it cannot be denied that during this period will, the Company had been driven by inexorable the Company did intervene in the affairs of the Indian fate to abandon its policy of Ring Fence and non- states on a number of occasions. Warren Hastings, interference, and to pass through the system of CADEMYCADEMYCADEMYsubordinate alliance otherwise and generous policy for instance, fought the First Martha War (1775-1782) CADEMY and the Second Mysore War (1780-1784) without any of cooperative partnership which holds at the present justifiable reason. Similarly, Lord Cornwallis fought day. the Third Mysore War (1790-1792) and annexedAAA half of its territory. Lord Wellesley fought the Fourth POLICY OF SUBORDINATE UNION Mysore War (1798-1799) and the Second Maratha War, (1858-1947) and alsoCHRCHRCHR compelled the rulers of Hyderabad and The Revolt of 1857 made the British reverse their Avadh to sign the Subsidiary treaties with the policy towards the princely states. Prior to the Revolt, Company. Lord Minto not only concluded the Treaty the British had made use of every opportunity to of Amritsar with Ranjit Singh but also granted annex the Indian states, but after it they abandoned protection of the Cis-Sutlej states whose very existence the policy of annexation in favour of another policy was being endangered by Ranjit Singh. known as the policy of 'subordinate Union'. During the Revolt, most of the native rulers had not only POLICY OF SUBORDINATE ISOLATION remained loyal to the British but had actively helped IASIASIAS(1813-58) the latter in suppressing it. Their loyalty was now During this period of 45 years, the British East rewarded with the announcement that their right to India Company made all states subordinate to itself adopt heirs would be respected and the integrity of 4 ©Chronicle IAS Academy their territories was guaranteed against future annexation.