MP1-MHs-19

MODERN HISTORY

 Advent of Europeans  British Administration in India  Early Resistance to British Rule  Struggleby the Masses  Social Reforms  Nationalism in India  Freedom Struggle Movements  Governor Generals During British India  Personalities TOPICS Contents

1. ADVENT OF EUROPEANS 07-25 1. Pre-British Political Environment in India ...... 7 2. Advent of Europeans ...... 13 3. British Conquest of India ...... 15 4. Historical Forces and Factors which led to the British Conquest of India ...... 16 5. Conquest of Bengal ...... 17 6. Conquest of Maharashtra ...... 19 7. Conquest of Sindh ...... 21 8. Resistance of Indian Powers and causes of their Failure ...... 21 9. Evolution of British Paramountcy Over Princely States ...... 22 10. Policy of Ring-Fence (1757-1813) ...... 22 11. Policy of Subordinate Isolation (1813-58) ...... 23 12. Policy of Subordinate Union (1858-1947) ...... 24

2. British Administration in India 26-54 1. British Colonialism in India ...... 26 2. Stages of Colonialism ...... 26 3. British Revenue Policy ...... 28 4. Judicial Policy ...... 29 5. Social Policy ...... 30 6. Education Policy ...... 30 7. British Economic Policies and their Impacts ...... 32 8. Agrarian System and Relations ...... 33 9. Commercialization of Agriculture ...... 33 10. Rural Indebtedness ...... 34 11. Growth of Agriculture Labour ...... 35 12. Destruction of Handicraft Industries ...... 36 13. Drain of Wealth ...... 36 14. Exchange System ...... 37 15. British Industrial Policy ...... 37 16. Why did the British Introduce Modern Industry into India? ..38 17. Growth of Modern Industry ...... 38 18. Rise of a Capitalist Class ...... 39 19. Activities of the Chritian Missionaries ...... 40 20. Governors - Generals and Administration Till 1857 ...... 41 21. Judicial Organization ...... 54

3. Early Resistance to British Rule 55-78

1. Tribal Revolts Especially in Central and Eastern India ...... 55 2. Civil Rebellions and Peasant Revolts with Special Reference to Indigo Revolts, Deccan Riots and Mappila Uprising ...... 57 3. What was the Indigo Revolt? ...... 59 4. What were the Causes of the Pabna Revolt? ...... 60 5. What were the Economic Causes of the Deccan Riots? ...... 60 6. Why did the Mappilas Rise in Revolt? ...... 60 7. What was the Nature and Signifi cance of the Civil Unrest? ....61 8. The Revolt of 1857 ...... 62 (i) APPENDIX: TRIBAL MOVEMENTS ...... 67

(ii) APPENDIX: Peasant Movements ...... 71

4. Struggl eby the Masses 79-88

1. Trade Union Movement in India ...... 79 2. The States People’s Movements ...... 82 3. Socialists and Left Bloc in Congress ...... 85 4. Left-Wing in the Congress ...... 86 5. Congress Socialism ...... 86 6. Communist Movement ...... 87

5. Social Reforms 89-97

1. Regeneration, Reforms and Renaissance in India ...... 89 2. Caste Movements ...... 94 3. Caste Movements in Maharashtra ...... 95 4. Caste Movements in South India ...... 96 5. Caste Movements in Northern and Eastern India ...... 97 6. Nationalism in India 98-120

1. Nationalism ...... 98 2. Social Basis of Indian Nationalism ...... 102 3. Rise and Growth of Indian National Congress ...... 103 4. Policies and Programme of the Early Nationalists ...... 107 5. Role of Literature and News-Media in Freedom Struggle ...... 110 6. Intensifi cation of Nationalist Movement ...... 112 7. Home Rule League ...... 115 8. Militants and Revolutionaries ...... 116 9. Gadar Movement ...... 118

7. Freedom Struggle Movements 121-153 1. Gandhi in South Africa ...... 121 2. Emergence of Gandhi in India ...... 122 3. Non-Cooperation Movement ...... 125 4. Civil Disobedience Movement ...... 127 5. Quit India Movement ...... 133 6. The Indian National Army ...... 137 7. Naval Mutiny of 1946 ...... 139 8. British Offi cial Response to National Movement ...... 141 9. Policy of Carrot and Stick ...... 142 10. Policy of Appeasement of Reactionary Forces ...... 143 11. Rise and Growth of Communalism ...... 143 12. The Partition of India and Attainment of Freedom ...... 146 13. Why was there a change in British attitude towards Freedom Struggle? ...... 147 (i) APPENDIX: CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT IN INDIA ...... 150

8. Governor Generals During British India 154-160

9. Personalities 161-178 1. Mahatma Gandhi ...... 161 2. Jawaharlal Nehru ...... 162 3. Vallabhbhai Patel ...... 163 4. Bal Gangadhar Tilak ...... 164 5. Gopal Krishna Gokhale ...... 164 6. Subhash Chandra Bose ...... 165 7. Lala Lajpat Rai ...... 166 8. Maulana Abul Kalam Azad ...... 166 9. Rajendra Prasad ...... 167 10. Sarojini Naidu ...... 168 11. Lal Bahadur Shastri ...... 168 12. Chandrasekhar Azad ...... 169 13. Bhagat Singh ...... 169 14. Annie Besant ...... 170 15. Bhimrao RAo Ambedkar ...... 170 16. Acharya Vinoba Bhave ...... 171 17. Sri Aurobindo ...... 171 18. Rabindranath Tagore ...... 172 19. Dadabhai Naoroji ...... 173 20. Muhammad Ali Jinnah ...... 173 21. KhAn Abdul GhaffAr KhAn ...... 174 22. Chakravarti Rajagopalachari ...... 174 23. Pandit Madan Mohan Malaviya ...... 175 24. Ram Manohar Lohia ...... 175 25. Aruna Asaf Ali ...... 175 26. Mahadev Govind Ranade ...... 176 27. Chittaranjan Das ...... 176 28. Jayaprakash Narayan ...... 176 29. Pandit Deendayal Upadhyay ...... 177 30. M.N. Roy ...... 177 31. Erode Venkata Ramasamy ...... 177

********** MODERN HISTORY

CHAPTER 1

ADVENT OF EUROPEANS

Pre-British Political Environment in India The eighteenth century in India was characterized by two critical transitions which altered the structure of power and initiated important social and economic changes. The fi rst was the transition in the fi rst half of the century from the Mughal Empire to the regional political orders. The second was the transition in the polity, society and economy. In the 18th century English East India Company steered its way to position of political dominance. The decline of the Mughal authority gave rise to the emergence of a number of independent kingdoms. The aggressive British policies affected the economic situation. The agricultural and non agricultural production was altered. The commercial activities also underwent changes. Decline of the Mughal Empire

 The unity and stability of the Mughal Empire was shaken during the long and strong reign of Emperor Aurangzeb. After the death of Aurangzeb the Mughal authority weakened. As a result many provincial governors started to assert their authority. In due course of time they gained independent status. At the same time many kingdoms which were subjugated by the Mughals also claimed their indepence. Some new regional groups also consolidated and emerged as political power with all these developments, the period between 1707 and 1761 AD (third battle of Panipat, where Ahmed Shah Abdali defeated the Maratha chiefs) witnessed resurgence of regional identity that buttressed both political and economic decentralization.  In 1707 AD, when Aurangzeb died, serious threats from the peripheries had begun to accentuate the problems at the core of the empire. The new emperor, Bahadur Shah I (or Shah Alam; ruled 1707-12 AD), followed a policy of compromise, pardoning all nobles who had supported his rivals. He never abolished jizya, but the effort to collect the tax were not effective. In the beginning he tried to gain greater control over the Rajput states of the rajas of Amber (later Jaipur) and Jodhpur. When his attempt met with fi rm resistance he realized the necessity of a settlement with them. However, the settlement did not restore them to fully committed warriors for the Mughal cause. The emperor’s policy toward the Marathas was also that of half-hearted conciliation. They continued to fi ght among themselves as well as against the Mughals in the Deccan. The Rise of Regional Polities and States

 The decline of Mughals at the centre led to the emergence of various regional principalities which were independent in functioning but theoritically under the suzernity of Mughal at Delhi. The states that arose in India during the phase of Mughal decline and the following century (roughly 1700 to 1850 AD) varied greatly in terms of resources, longevity, and essential character. Some of them- such as Hyderabad in the south, was located in an area that had harboured regional state in the immediate pre-Mughal period and thus had an older local or regional tradition of state formation. Others were

www.iasscore.in 7 MODERN HISTORY

states that had a more original character and derived from very specifi c processes that had taken place in the course of the late sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. In particular, many of the post- Mughal states were based on ethnic or sectarian groupings- the Marathas, the Jats, and the Sikhs. In due course, the enrichment of the regions emboldened local land- and power- holders to take up arms against external authority. However, mutual rivalry and confl icts prevented these rebels from consolidating their interests into an effective challenge to the empire. They relied on support from kinsfolk, peasants, and smaller zamindars of their own castes. Each local group wanted to maximize its share of the prosperity at the expense of the others. The necessity of emphasizing imperial symbols was inherent in the kind of power politics that emerged. Each of the contenders in the regions, in proportion to his strength, looked for and seized opportunities to establish his dominance over the others in the neighbourhood. They all needed a kind of legitimacy, which was so conveniently available in the long-accepted authority of the Mughal emperor. They had no fear in collectively accepting the symbolic hegemony of the Mughal centre, which had come to co-exist with their ambitions.  The gradual weakening of the central authority set in motion new types of provincial kingdoms. Nobles with ability and strength sought to build a regional base for themselves. Seizing upon the disintegration of the empire, the Marathas now began their northward expansion and overran Malwa, Gujarat, and Bundelkhand. Then, in 1738-39, Nadir Shah, who had established himself as the ruler of Iran, invaded India. The Maratha Power

 There is no doubt that the single most important power that emerged in the long twilight of the Mughal dynasty was the Marathas. The most important Maratha warrior clan was of the Bhonsles, Sivaji Bhonsle, emerged as the most powerful fi gure in the southern politics. For a time it appeared that Maratha power was on the decline. But a recovery was effected in the early eighteenth century, in somewhat changed circumstances.  A particularly important phase in this respect was the reign of Sahu, who succeeded Rajaram in 1708. Sahu’s reign, lasted for four decades upto 1749. It was marked by the ascendancy of a lineage of Chitpavan Brahman ministers, who virtually came to control central authority in the Maratha state. The Bhonsles were reduced to fi gureheads. Holding the title of Peshwa (chief minister), the fi rst truly prominent fi gure of this line was Balaji Visvanath, who had helped Sahu in his rise to power. Visvanath and his successor, Baji Rao I (Peshwa between 1720 and 1740), managed to bureaucratise the Maratha state to a far greater extent than had been the case under the early Bhonsles. They systematized the practice of tribute gathering from Mughal territories, under the heads of Sardeshmukhi and Chauth (the two terms corresponding to the proportion of tribute collected). They seem to have consolidated methods of assessment and collection of land revenue and other taxes, on the lines of the Mughals. Much of the revenue terminology used in the documents of the Peshwa and his subordinates derives from Persian. This suggests a greater continuity between Mughal and Maratha revenue practices.

 The Maratha Confederacy " By the close of Sahu’s reign, a few powerful Maratha Kingdoms were in complete control of their territories. This period saw the development of sophisticated networks of trade, banking, and fi nance in the territories under their control. The banking houses based at Pune, had their branches in Gujarat, Ganges Valley, and the south. Attention was also paid to the Maritime affairs. Bala ji Visvanath took some care to cultivate the Angria clan, which controlled a fl eet of vessels based in Kolaba and other centres of the west coast. These ships posed a threat not only to the new English settlement of Bombay, but to the Portuguese at Goa, Bassein, and Daman. On the other hand, there also emerged a far larger domain of activity away from the original heartland of the Marathas. Of these chiefs, the most important were the Gaikwads (Gaekwars), the Sindhias, and the Holkars. Also, there were branches of the Bhonsle family that relocated to Kolhapur and Nagpur, while the main line remained in the Deccan heartland, at Satara. The Bhonsles of Nagpur

 Unlike the Kolhapur Bhonsles and the descendants of Vyamkoji at Thanjavur, both of whom claimed a status equal to that of the Satara raja, the line at Nagpur was clearly subordinate to the Satara rulers. A crucial fi gure from this line is Raghuji Bhonsle (ruled 1727-55), who was responsible for the Maratha incursions on Bengal and Bihar in the 1740s and early 1750s. The relations of his successors, Janoji, Sabaji, and Mudhoji, with the Peshwas and the Satara line were varying, and it is in this sense that these domains can be regarded as only loosely confederated, rather than tightly bound together.

8 www.iasscore.in MODERN HISTORY

The Gaikwads of Baroda

The Gaikwads, gathered prominence in the 1720. Initially they were subordinate not only to the Bhonsles but also to the powerful Dabhade family. However, it was only after the death of Sahu, when the power of the Peshwas was further enhanced, that the position of the Gaikwads truly improved. By the early 1750s, their rights on large portion of the revenues of Gujarat were recognized by the Peshwa. The expulsion of the Mughal governor of the Gujarat province from his capital of Ahmadabad in 1752 set the seal on the process. The Gaikwads preferred, however, to establish their capital in Baroda, causing realignment in the network of trade and consumption in the area. By 1800, the British rather than the Peshwa was the fi nal arbiters in determining succession among the Gaikwads, who became subordinate rulers under them in the nineteenth century. The Holkars of lndore

In the case of the Holkars, the rise in status and wealth was particularly rapid and marked. Initially they had very little political power. However by 1730s, their chief Malhar Rao Holkar consolidated his position. He was granted a large share of the chauth collection in Malwa, eastern Gujarat, and Khandesh. Within a few years, Malhar Rao consolidated his own principality at Indore, from which his successors controlled important trade routes as well as the crucial trading centre of Burhanpur. After him, control of the dynastic fortunes fell largely to his son’s widow, Ahalya Bai, who ruled from 1765 to 1794 and brought Holkar power to great glory. The Sindhias of Gwalior

 The Sindhias carved a prominent place for themselves in North Indian politics in the decades following the third battle of Panipat (1761). Again, like the Holkars, the Sindhias were based largely in central India, fi rst at Ujjain, and later (from the last quarter of the 18th century) in Gwalior. During the long reign of Mahadaji Sindhia (1761-94) family’s fortunes were truly consolidated. Mahadaji, proved an effective and innovative military commander. He employed a large number of European soldiers in his force.  His power grew rapidly after 1770. During this period he managed to make substantial inroads into North India that had been weakened by Afghan attacks. He intervened with some effect in the Mughal court during the reign of Shah Alam II. The Mughal king made him the “deputy regent” of his affairs in the mid-1780s. His shadow fell not only across the provinces of Delhi and Agra but also on Rajasthan and Gujarat, making him the most formidable Maratha leader of the era. The offi cials of the East India Company were very cautious in dealing with him. His relations with the acting peshwa, Nana Fadnavis at Pune were fraught with tension.  Eventually, the momentum generated by Mahadaji could not be maintained by his successor Daulat Rao Sindhia (ruled 1794-1827), who was defeated by the British and forced by treaty in 1803 to surrender his territories both to the north and to the west. The careers of some of these potentates, especially Mahadaji Sindhia, illustrate the potency of Mughal symbols even in the phase of Mughal decline. For instance, after recapturing Gwalior from the British, Mahadaji took care to have his control of the town sanctioned. The Nawabs of Bengal

Murshid Quli Khan who started his career as diwan of Bengal under Aurangzeb became virtually independent with the growing weakening of the central authority. However, he regularly sent tribute to the Mughal emperor. Ali Vardi Khan deposed the family of Murshid Quli Khan and made himself the Nawab in 1739. These Nawabs brought stability and peace and promoted agriculture, trade and industry. Equal opportunities were given to both Hindus and Muslims. But the Nawabs could not visualise the long term implications of the presence of the European trading companies and neglected military preparedness. In 1756-1757, the successor of Ali Vardi Khan, Siraj-ud-Daulah had to fi ght the English East India Company over the trading rights. His defeat in the battle of Plassey in June 1757 paved the way for subjugation of Bengal as well as India. The Nawabs of Awadh

With the weakening central control the Mughal suba of Awadh also saw emerging ambitions of a provincial governor- Saadat Khan Burhan ul Mulk. Saadat Khan disciplined the local zamindars and gave shape to a well paid, well armed and well trained army. Before his death in 1739, Saadat Khan made the provincial head a hereditary position. His successors Safdar Jung and Asaf ud Daulah not only played very decisive role in the politics of northern India but also gave a long term administrative stability to the nawabi of

www.iasscore.in 9 MODERN HISTORY

Awadh. Under the Nawabs fi rstly Faizabad and then Lucknow became the cultural rival of Delhi in the spheres of arts, literature and crafts. Regional architecture refl ected itself in the form of Imambarah and other buildings. The evolution of dance form Kathak was the outcome of cultural synthesis. The Sikhs of Punjab

 The Mughal force supressed the Sikhs under Banda Bahadur. But this did not put an end to Sikh resistance to Mughal authority. In the 1720s and 1730s, Amritsar emerged as a centre of Sikh activity, mainly because of its preeminence as a pilgrimage centre. Kapur Singh, the most important of the Sikh leaders of the time, operated from its vicinity. He gradually set about consolidating a revenue-cum military system.  Some Sikh groups also started consolidating themselves as political force. These activities discouraged the attempts by the Mughal governors of Lahore Suba to set up an independent power base for themselves in the region. First Abdus Samad Khan and then his son Zakariya Khan attempted to control sovereign power. After the latter’s demise in 1745, the balance shifted still further in favour of the Sikh warrior-leaders, such as Jassa Singh Ahluwalia. He later on founded the kingdom of Kapurthala.  The mushrooming of pockets under the authority of Sikh leaders was thus a feature of the two decades preceding Ahmed Shah Abdali’s invasion of the Punjab. This process was evident in the eastern Punjab and Bari Doab. Though the principal opposition faced by Abdali in his campaigns of the 1750s and 1760s in the Punjab came from the Sikhs, Marathas also played a role of signifi cance on this occasion.  Eventually, by the mid-1760s, Sikh authority over Lahore was established, and the Afghans were not able to consolidate their early gains. Under Ahmad Shah’s successor, Timur Shah (ruled 1772-93), some of the territories and towns that had been taken by the Sikhs (such as Multan) were recovered, and the descendants of Ahmad Shah continued to harbour ambitions in this direction until the end of the century. But by the 1770s, they were dealing with a confederation of about 60 Sikh chieftains, some of these were to emerge as princely states under the British- such as Nabha and Patiala.  The Sikh chiefdoms continued many of the administrative practices initiated by the Mughals. The main subordinates of the chiefs were given jagir assignments. The Persianized culture of the Mughal bureaucracy continued to hold sway. Ranjit Singh’s effective rule lasted four decades, from 1799 to 1839. The power of the English East India Company was growing in all parts of the country during this period. Within ten years of his death, the British had annexed Punjab. His rise to power was based on superior military force, partly serviced by European mercenaries and by the strategic location of the territories that he had inherited from his father.  Ranjit Singh’s kingdom represented the culmination of nearly a century of Sikh rebellions against Mughal rule. It was based on the intelligent application of principles of statecraft. He used as his capital the great trading city of Lahore, which he captured in 1799. Having gained control of the trade routes, he imposed monopolies on the trade in salt, grain, and textiles from Kashmir to enhance his revenues. Using these earnings, he built up an army of 40,000 cavalry and infantry. By the year 1809, he was undisputed master of the most of Punjab. Jaipur and other Rajputana States

 Jaipur (earlier Amber) in eastern Rajasthan, was a Rajput principality controlled by the Kachwaha clan. In the early eighteenth century, the ruler Jai Singh Sawai took steps to increase his power manyfold. This was done by: (i) arranging to have his jagir assignment in the vicinity of his home territories; and (ii) by taking on rights on land revenue through farming (for collection of land tax rights on a parcel of land that are rented by the state to an individual), which was gradually made permanent. By the time of his death in 1743, Jai Singh (after whom Jaipur came to be named) had emerged as the single most important ruler in the region. Most of the larger Rajput states were constantly involved in petty quarrels and civil wars.  In the 1750s, Suraj Mal the Jat ruler of Bharatpur, like Jai Singh- adopted a modifi ed form of Mughal revenue administration in his territories. However, by this time, the fortunes of the Jaipur kingdom were seriously in question. Under threat from the Marathas, recourse had to be taken to adopt short- term fi scal exactions. At the same time a series of crop failures in the 1750s and 60s adversely affected fragile agriculture. The second half of the eighteenth century was thus marked by an economic depression, accompanied by a decline in the political power of Jaipur. During this period Jaipur became a vulnerable target for the ambitions of the Marathas, and of Mahadaji Sindhia in particular.  The states discussed so far, with the exception of Maratha, were all landlocked. However, lack of access to the sea greatly increased the vulnerability of a state, particularly in an era when the major power was the English East India Company, itself initially a maritime enterprise.

10 www.iasscore.in MODERN HISTORY

Politics in South India

 In the south, unlike the areas discussed so far, several states did make a determined bid in this period to consolidate their power by the use of access to sea and ports. Principal among these were Travancore in Kerala under Martanda Varma and Rama Varma, and Mysore under Haidar Ali and Tipu Sultan. These states rose to prominence only in the latter half of the eighteenth century, or at least after 1740. Before that, the southern Indian scene had been dominated by a group of Muslim notables who had accompanied the Mughal expansion into the region in the 1680s and 1690s, or else had come in a second wave that followed immediately after 1700. The Nizam-ul-Mulk had consolidated his position in Hyderabad by the 1740s, whereas the Arcot principality had emerged some three decades earlier. Neither of these rulers, while establishing dynastic succession, claimed full sovereignty. Thus they continued to cast themselves as representatives of Mughal authority. Southern Indian politics in the 1720s emerged, therefore, as a game with many petty players and three formidable ones: the Marathas (both at Thanjavur and elsewhere), the Nizam, and the Arcot (or Karnatak) Nawab.  In the second half of the eighteenth century, the power of all three of these centres declined. The succession struggle at Arcot in the 1740s and early 1750s left its rulers open to fi nancial manipulation by private British merchants, to whom they were increasingly in debt for war expenses. In the 1750s the power of Hyderabad also declined (after the death of its founder, the Nizam-ul-Mulk). The control of the coastal districts was soon lost, leaving the kingdom landlocked and relatively sparsely populated.

 The State of Travancore " These principles were put into practice in the southern Kerala state of Venad (Travancore) by Martanda Varma (ruled 1729-58). The king initiated a few measures to strengthen his authority. These were: (i) built a substantial standing army of about 50,000; (ii) reduced the power of the Nayar aristocracy on which rulers of the area had earlier been dependent militarily; and (iii) fortifi ed the northern limits of his kingdom at the so-called “Travancore line.” It was also the policy of this ruler to extend patronage to the Syrian Christians, a large trading community within his domains, as a means of limiting European involvement in trade. The key commodity was pepper, but other goods also came to be defi ned as royal monopoly items, requiring a license for trade. These policies were continued in large measure by Martanda’s successor, Rama Varma (ruled 1758-98), who was able to defend his kingdom successfully against a dangerous new rival power- Mysore.

 The Rise of Mysore " Under rulers of the Vadiyar dynasty, such as Kanthirava Narasaraja and Chikka Deva Raja Mysore emerged as an important state. However, Mysore was a landlocked kingdom and dependent therefore on trade and military supplies brought through the ports of the Indian east coast. As these ports came increasingly under European control, Mysore’s vulnerability increased. " From the 1760s, steps were taken to change this situation. A cavalry commander of migrant origin, Haidar Ali, assumed effective power in the kingdom in 1761, reducing the Vadiyars to fi gureheads and displacing the powerful Kalale family of ministers. First Haidar and then, after 1782, his son, Tipu Sultan, made attempts to consolidate Mysore and make it a kingdom with access to not one but both coasts of peninsular India. " Coastal Karnataka and northern Kerala came under their sway, enabling Tipu to open diplomatic and commercial relations on his own account with the Middle East. Tipu’s ambitions apparently greatly exceeded those of his father, and he strove actively to escape the all- pervasive shadow of Mughal suzerainty, as discussed above. " However, the problem with the Mysore of Haidar and Tipu was their inability to build an internal consensus. Their dependence on migrants and mercenaries, for both military and fi scal expertise, was considerable, and they were always resisted by local chiefs, the so called Poligars. More crucial was the fact that by the 1770s Mysore faced a formidable military adversary in the form of the English East India Company, which did not allow it any breathing room. It was the English who denied Mysore access to the relatively rich agricultural lands and ports of the Coromandel coastal plain in eastern India. Tipu was also fi nally killed in 1799 by the English forces. The Economy in Eighteenth Century India

 The eighteenth century can hardly be said to exhibit any substantial economic continuity between its earlier and later parts. It was a period of considerable political turmoil in India, one in which states were formed and dissolved in quick succession. That there was a great deal of fl uidity in the system. It is of course true that raids by military forces would have caused dislocation. The destruction of irrigation

www.iasscore.in 11 MODERN HISTORY

tanks, the forcible expropriation of cattle wealth, and even the forced march of masses of people were not unknown in the wars of the 1770s and thereafter. All these must have had a harmful effect on economic stability and curtailed the impulse toward growth.  When viewed from Delhi, the 18th century is certainly a gloomy period. The attacks of Nadir Shah, then of Ahmad Shah Abdali, and fi nally the attacks by the Rohillas (who controlled Delhi in 1761-71) put the city in a state of regular destruction. There was a process of economic reorientation that accompanied the political decentralization of the era, and it is on account of this that the experience of Delhi and Agra cannot be generalized.  However, the conditions of different regions were not uniform. In some, the fi rst half of the eighteenth century witnessed continued expansion- Bengal, Jaipur, and Hyderabad, for example. While some others were late bloomers, as in the case of Travancore, Mysore, or the Punjab.  Despite some key weaknesses and contradictions the economy of the eighteenth century performed well in the spheres of agriculture, inland trade and urbanization. There were some areas which saw agricultural decline, often because of inter state warfare as in the Punjab and parts of north India. Lack of new agricultural methods and techniques was overcome with the experience and management of land and labour.  Data of Taqsim papers used and compared vis-a-vis Ain-i-Akbari proves that it was not the lack of cultivable land but lack of labour and peace which resulted into declining agricultural production and fl uctuating agricultural prices as well. At the same time the price rise benefi ted the peasants but unequally according to vertically divided sections of peasantry. It is noteworthy that, except for a major subsistence crisis in south India between 1702 and 1704, the fi rst seven decades of eighteenth century in India were remarkably free of famine. The great Bengal famine of 1770, in which an estimated one- third of the population perished, occurred soon after the colonial conquest. This was followed by another disastrous famine in north India in 1783.  Overall a favourable land- labour ratio had enabled highly mobile peasant and tribal labour to negotiate reasonable terms with controllers of land. But the excessive revenue demands made the peasants’ desertion a regular phenomenon particularly in north India. While some village notables managed to transform revenue farms into hereditary estates, others felt the squeeze from powerful regional states as Mysore.  Fragmented polities did not hamper the development of a thriving inland trade in grain, cloth and cattle. Corporate merchant institutions transcended political boundaries in overseeing the transportation of goods and the provision of credit and insurance services. Pre- colonial era artisnal labour, especially weavers, had ample scope for successfully resisting extravagant demands by intermediate social groups and the state. Even an intrusive state like late-eighteenth century Mysore appeared to attack intermediaries rather than labour. Evidence from Bengal and Madras suggests that urban labour was worse off in relation to the state and the market in the early colonial than in the immediate precolonial period.  While inland trade did well, the Indian shippers and merchants involved in export trade declined in the face of European advances. The great Gujarati port city of Surat lost its importance around 1720. There was a resurgence of demand for Indian goods in both West and South East Asia in the late eighteenth century in addition to European demand, but by now British merchants and shippers had achieved dominance at the expense of Indians and took the bulk of the profi ts.  As the old commercial centres of Surat, Masulipatnam and Dhaka degenerated, colonial port-cities like Bombay, Madras and Calcutta took their pride of place. But the decline of the Mughal capitals of Delhi and Agra was offset by the rise of regional capitals, including Lucknow, Hyderabad, the various Maratha cities, and Seringapatam.  The level of urbanization was clearly higher in 1800 than a century before. It would also appear for a variety of reasons, that the mid- eighteenth century marks a signifi cant change in economic sphere. For example, once the English East India Company got hold on the revenues of Bengal subah the fl ow of money was adversely affected. While earlier Bengal received gold and silver in exchange for its exports, this pattern no longer held. In later part of eighteenth century the peasants were forced to cultivate certain cash crops like indigo and opium. This had adverse impact on food crop production.  But another reason why the latter half of the eighteenth century differs from the period before about 1750 is the changing character of war. In the post-1750 period, warfare became more disruptive of civil life and economic production than before, and at the same time the new technologies in use made it a far more expensive proposition. The use of fi rearms on a large scale, the employment of mercenaries, the maintenance of standing armies, all of these had harmful affects.

12 www.iasscore.in MODERN HISTORY

The Social Context

 The social life in eighteenth century India was continuation of the past legacy. Despite some universal features of socio-cultural unity through out India over the centuries, there was no uniformity in the social patterns. The society was divided into multi layered identities on the basis of religion, region, tribe, language, class and caste.  Hindus were divided on the basis of hundreds of castes. Inter- caste marriages and inter caste- dining was forbidden. Traditionally, caste was the basis of the profession but by the eighteenth century to some extent social and professional mobility was being followed. For example, Brahmans started adopting various progenies and pursuing trading activities. The caste continued to be a major divisive force. Muslims were also infl uenced by the considerations of race, caste, tribe and status. The Shias and Sunnis had major religious differences while the Irani, Afghani, Turani and Hindustani Muslims had lot of differences to stand apart from each other. People converted to Islam carried their caste into the religion. The basic social unit was the family based on patriarchal patterns except Kerela where matrilineal system was prevalent.  Women’s were expected to live as the role models of ideal daughters, wives and mothers. Women of the upper classes, in north India, had to follow purdah. Child marriages was prevalent and marriage was a social obligation between the two families. Among the upper classes polygamy and dowry was prevalent but the greatest evil of eighteenth century India were the custom of sati and the condition of widows among the Hindus.  The education system could not change according to the requirements of the time. The curriculum was confi ned to literature, languages, law, religion, philosophy and logic and excluded the study of physical and natural sciences, technology and geography. There was lack of progressive ideas as theoretical framework dominated. Elementary education was widespread. Mediums of higher education were Sanskrit and Persian only. Moreover, this education excluded females and low caste people. The Cultural Milieu

 It is generally maintained that the eighteenth century witnessed a general decline in material life, the cultural life of the period also has often been denigrated. Even Delhi, whose economic condition unequivocally declined, had a number of major poets, philosophers, and thinkers in this epoch, from Shah Waliullah to Mir Taqi Mir. Further, as regional courts grew in importance, they tended to take on the function of the principal patrons of high culture, whether in music, the visual arts, or literature. It is thus also in relatively dispersed centres, ranging from Awadh to Bikaner and Lahore to Thanjavur, that one fi nds the courtly traditions of culture persisting. Thanjavur under the Marathas is a particularly fi ne example of cultural effl orescence, in which literary production of a high quality in Tamil, Telugu, Sanskrit, and Marathi continued, with some of the Maratha rulers themselves playing a signifi cant direct role.  Similarly, it is in the eighteenth century Thanjavur that the main compositions of what is today known as the Carnatic tradition of Indian classical music came to be written, by such men as Tyagaraja, Muttuswami Diksitar, and Syama Sastri. Many of the theatre and musical traditions, as well as formal literary genres of the period, picked up and ‘reincorporated folk infl uences. At the same time, the interaction of popular Hinduism and Islam gave a particular fl avour to cultural activities associated with pilgrimages and festivals. When a major new political centre emerged, it rapidly attracted talent, as evidenced in Ranjit Singh’s Lahore. Here, Persian literature of high quality was produced, but not at the cost of literary output in Punjabi.  At the same time, new developments were visible in the fi elds of architecture and painting. Farther to the north, the principality of Kangra fostered an important new school of painting, devoted largely to Vaishnava themes. The cultural assimilation was outcome of mutual infl uence and respect. Among the major religions the Marathas supported the shrine of Shaikh Muinuddin Chisti in Ajmer and the Raja of Tanjore fi nanced the shrine of Shaikh Shahul Hamid of Nagaur.  Tipu Sultan of Mysore supported Shringeri temple and Muslims joyfully participated in the Hindu festivals just as the Hindus were part of Muharram processions. Indeed, a surprisingly large proportion of what is understood today to be part of India’s “traditional” culture is attributable to this period and also to the preceding century.

Advent of Europeans  Before the beginning of the formal rule of the British in India, there was a background of Indo- European economic relationship. The commercial contacts between India and Europe were very old via

www.iasscore.in 13 MODERN HISTORY

the land route either through the Oxus valley or Syria or Egypt. But, the new sea route via the Cape of Good Hope was discovered by Vasco da Gama in 1498. Thereafter, many trading companies came to India and established their trading centres. The British East India Company was a Joint-Stock Company established in 1600, as The Company of Merchants of London Trading into the East Indies. During this time, other trading companies, established by the Portuguese, Dutch, French, and Danish were similarly expanding in the region.  The British Company gained footing in India in 1612 after Mughal emperor Jahangir granted the rights to establish a factory (a trading post) in Surat to Sir Thomas Roe, a representative diplomat of Queen Elizabeth Ist of England. They entered India as traders at the outset but by the passage of time indulged in the politics of India and fi nally established their colonies. The commercial rivalry among the European powers led to political rivalry. Ultimately, the British succeeded in establishing their rule India. The Dutch

 In March, 1602, by a charter of the Dutch parliament the Dutch East India Company was formed with powers to make wars, concluded treaties, acquire territories and build fortresses. The Dutch set up factories at Masulipatam (1605), Pulicat (1610), Surat (1616), Bimilipatam (1641), Karikal (1645), Chinsura (1653), Kasimbazar, Baranagore, Patna, Balasore, Negapatam (all in 1658) and Cochin (1663). Pulicat was their centre in India till 1690, after which Negapatam replaced it.  In the middle of the 17th century (1654) the English began to emerge as a formidable colonial power. After 60-70 years of rivalry with the English, the Dutch power in India began to decline by the beginning of the 18th century. Their fi nal collapse came with their defeat by the English in the battle of Bedera in 1759. The Portuguese

 The Portuguese traveler Vasco da Gama reached the port of Calicut on 17 May 1498 and he was warmly received by Zamorin, the ruler of Calicut. They established trading stations at Calicut, Cannanore and Cochin. The fi rst governor of the Portuguese in India was Francis de Almeida. Later in 1509 Albuquerque was made the governor of the Portuguese territories in India. In 1510, he captured Goa from the ruler of Bijapur. Thereafter, Goa became the capital of the Portuguese settlements in India. He encouraged his countrymen to marry Indian women. Albuquerque died in 1515 leaving the Portuguese as the strongest naval power in India.  The successors of Albuquerque established Portuguese settlements at Daman, Salsette and Bombay on the west coast and at Santhome near Madras and Hugli in Bengal on the east coast. However, the Portuguese power declined in India by the end of the sixteenth century. They lost all their possessions in India except Goa, Daman and Diu. The French

 The French East India Company was formed by Colbert under state patronage in 1664. The fi rst French factory was established at Surat by Francois Caron in 1668. Later Maracara set up a factory at Masulipatam in 1669. Also Chandernagore in Bengal was acquired from the Mughal governor in 1690. The French power in India declined between 1706 and 1720 which led to the reconstitution of the Company in 1720.  The French power in India was revived under Lenoir and Dumas (governors) between 1720 and 1742. They occupied Mahe in the Malabar, Yanam in Coromandal (both in 1725) and Karikal in Tamil Nadu (1739). The arrival of Dupleix as French governor in India in 1742 saw the beginning of Anglo French confl ict (Carnatic wars) resulting in their fi nal defeat in India. The English

 The English East India Company was established in 1600 and the Charter was issued by Queen Elizabeth of England. Captain Hawkins arrived at the royal court of Jahangir in 1609 to seek permission to establish English trading centre at Surat. In 1612, Jahangir issued a farman (permission letter) to the English and they established a trading factory at Surat in 1613. Sir Thomas Roe came to India as ambassador of James I, the king of England to the Mughal court in 1615. He obtained permission from Jahangir to establish English trading factories in different parts of India.  The English East India Company acquired Bombay from Charles II, the then king of England. In 1639, Francis Day founded the city of Madras where the Fort St. George was built. In 1690, an English factory

14 www.iasscore.in MODERN HISTORY

was established at a place called Sutanuti by Job Charnock. Later it developed into the city of Calcutta where Fort William was built. Later, Calcutta became the capital of British India. Thus Bombay, Madras, Calcutta became three presidency towns of the English settlements in India. The Danes

 Denmark also established trade settlements in India. Their settlement at Tranquebar was founded in 1620. Another important Danish settlement in India was Serampore in Bengal. Serampore was their headquarters in India. They failed to strengthen themselves in India and they sold all their settlement in India to the British in 1845. Anglo-French Rivalry

 In the beginning of the eighteenth century, the English and the French were competing with each other to establish their supremacy in India. Both of them used the political turmoil prevalent in India as a result of the decline of the Mughal Empire in their favour and indulged in internal politics. The Anglo- French rivalry in India was manifest in the Carnatic region and in Bengal.

 The Carnatic Wars " In 1740, the Austrian War of Succession broke out in Europe. In that war England and France were in the opposite camps. They came into confl ict in India also. The French governor of Pondicherry, Dupleix opened attack on the English in 1746 and thus began the First Carnatic War (1746-1748). The English army crushed a defeat on the French in the Battle of Adyar, near Madras. In the meantime, the Treaty of Aix-la-Chappelle was concluded in 1748 to end the Austrian Succession War. Thus the First Carnatic War came to an end. " But the English and French continued to take opposite sides in the internal politics of India. This resulted in the Second Carnatic War (1749-1754). The British commander Robert Clive captured Arcot. He also infl icted a severe defeat on the French at Kaveripakkam. Meanwhile Dupleix was replaced by Godeheu as the French governor. The war came to an end by the Treaty of Pondicherry in 1754. " The outbreak of the Seven Years War (1756-1763) in Europe led to the Third Carnatic War (1758- 1763). Count de Lally was the commander of the French troops. The British General Sir Eyre Coote defeated him at Wandiwash in 1760. In the next year, Pondicherry was captured and destroyed by the British troops. The Seven Years War came to an end by the Treaty of Paris in1763. The Third Carnatic War also ended. The French agreed to confi ne its activities in Pondicherry, Karaikkal, Mahe and Yenam. Thus the Anglo-French rivalry came to a close with British success and French failure. " There were many causes for the French failure:  Commercially and as a naval power, the English were superior to French.  There was lack of support to the French’s from their government and there was difference of opinion between the French Generals.  French had support only in the Deccan but the English had a strong base in Bengal.  English had three important ports – Calcutta, Bombay and Madras but French had only Pondicherry.  England’s victory in the European wars decided the destiny of the French in India.

British Conquest of India

 During the heydays of Mughal rule a number of Europeans came to India for trading. These Europeans were well organized as joint stock companies and set up their trading centers called factories in different regions of India. Initially they competed among themselves for having monopoly over European trade with India. In this European rivalry the English scored easy victories over the Portuguese and Dutch but met stiff resistance from the French. The Anglo-French trade rivalry and their subsequent attempt to interface in the political affairs of India culminated in the Carnatic Wars. By the end of the Third Carnatic War, the French were no longer a threat to the British who now became strong contenders in South Indian politics.

www.iasscore.in 15 MODERN HISTORY

 In the meanwhile, the political situation undergoing drastic changes in another important region of India, viz., Bengal, which was one of the most fertile and prosperous parts of India. Siraj-ud-Daula, the then Bengal Nawab, seeing the hostile activities of the British, was apprehensive of the fate of Bengal and decided to take action against them. This resulted in a series of events culminating in the so-called ‘Battle of Plassey’, which made the British the ‘King-maker’ in Bengal. The subsequent activities of the British there led to a fi nal showdown in the form of the Battle of Buxar which proved to be a turning point making the British real masters of Bengal, though formal authority still remained with the Nawab. From their base here, the British began to compete fi rst as equals and later superiors to the Indian powers.  With the victory of the British in the Carnatic Wars and more importantly in the Bengal battles began the process of their conquest of India. By 1765, the British had not only become the virtual rulers of Bengal, Bihar and Orissa but also begun to dictate terms to the Nawabs of both Carnatic and Awadh. The British however had to contend with the Marathas for another half a century and also had to overcome the resistance of Hyderabad and Mysore states. This was a gradual process by the end of which parts of India came under British control.

Historical Forces and Factors which led to the British Conquest of India There is a fundamental distinction between a historical force and a historical factor. Historical force is the unseen or the invisible element behind a certain happening. Historical factor on the other hand is a visible and apparent cause for a certain happening in history. What were the forces of Modernism?

 Modernism on the one hand and medievalism on the other were the historical forces which were responsible for the British conquest of India. Modernism, an outcome of the Renaissance spirit and the scientifi c view was the pervading force all over Western Europe from the 17th century onwards. Britain too was going through different phases of Modernism namely Mercantilism and later Imperialism (of Industrial capitalism). The concrete manifestations of the force of Modernism were the Agricultural, Scientifi c and Technological advancement, and Industrial Revolutions. Modernism, as was experienced by Britain from the 17th century onwards, was quite aggressive in nature and was responsible for the British conquest of colonies like India.  Medievalism, as a force, continued to pervade Asia, including India in the form of Feudalism even while the whole of Western Europe was experiencing the different phases of Modernism. The nature of Indian economy polity and society continued to be feudal as evident from the prevalence of Jagirdari system, absence of the modern sense of nationalism, lack of scientifi c temper, blind belief in superstitions, etc. Hence medievalism, with its crisis-ridden feudal system, could not meet the onslaught of a young and aggressive force, viz, Modernism.  Hence, the conquest of India by the British might not have been unavoidable, but the replacement of the exiting decadent system of Medievalism by a new representative system of Modernism was defi nitely unavoidable in India. What were the Factors?

 The historical factors were the outcome of the historical forces of Modernism as well as Medievalism. With the onset of the Industrial Revolution in Britain for instance, there was a growing need for colonies which would supply raw materials for its industries as well as provide large markets for its fi nished or manufactured goods. India being predominantly a vast agrarian country seemed to be the right choice for a colony to meet both the above British needs. It produced raw-materials like cotton and indigo on large scale and it also provided a large market for British manufactured goods.  Besides, in the wake of the decline of the Mughal Empire, India came to be politically fragmented into innumerable small kingdom and principalities. The one political power that could have brought about political unity at this stage, the Marathas, were beset with internal weaknesses and hence failed to deliver the goods at a crucial time. Utterly unmindful of the danger posed to them and to India by the European settlers, the Maratha chiefs wasted away their energies by continuously fi ghting fratricidal wars.

16 www.iasscore.in MODERN HISTORY

 There was total absence of the feeling of nationalism in its modern sense, among the Indians- both the rules and the ruled. Because of the above fact, the Indian rulers with the exception of a handful like Hyder Ali and Tipu Sultan put their narrow and immediate interest above all, by inciting intervention by foreign power such as the French and the English on their behalf. And the Indian people too, lacking the feeling of modern nationalism enrolled themselves in large numbers in the British Indian armed forces and in their mercenary zeal became the main instrument of the British conquest of their own country.  Moreover, the British were superior to the Indians in many aspects such as the organization of the armed forces methods and techniques of warfare, weapons of war etc. The British force, well trained and disciplined and paid in cash, were much better organized. The rout of the numerically superior Indian armies by the numerically much inferior British forces was due to the organizational superior of the British forces over their Indian counterparts.  In methods and techniques of warfare too the English enjoyed an advantage over the Indians. For instance, the Indian rulers relied heavily on the cavalry while the British put great emphasis on their superior artillery which, in fact, tilted the scales and decided the issues in many a battle in their favour.  Similarly the neglect of the navy by the Indian rulers and their failure to realize the importance of the British mastery over the seas proved disastrous to them as well as to India.  Finally, the British being the benefi ciaries of the Industrial and technological Revolutions possessed much superior weapons of war than the Indians.

Conquest of Bengal What were the causes for the Battle of Plassey?

 The lessons learnt in South India were probably applied by the British in Bengal which was the most fertile and richest of India’s provinces. Its industries and commerce were well developed. Naturally the East India Company and its servants had highly profi table trading interest in the region. The British company had obtained valuable privileges in 1717 under a royal farman of the Mughal emperor which had granted the company the freedom to export and import their goods in Bengal without paying taxes, and the right to issue dastaks for the movement of such goods. The company’s servants were also permitted to trade but were not covered by this farman. It was a perpetual source of confl ict between the company and the Nawab of Bengal. All the Nawabs of Bengal from Murshid Quli Khan to Alivardi Khan had objected to the English misinterpretation to the farman of 1717. They had compelled the company to pay lump sums to their treasury and fi rmly suppressed the misuse of dastaks. But matters became severe in 1756 when Siraj-ud-daula succeeded to the throne.  The personality of the new Nawab, Siraj-ud-daula was another factor. Siraj being young and energetic though inexperienced and hasty, wanted to impose the same restrictions on the British as was done by his predecessors. But the British now felt strong enough to oppose his authority due to the confi dence gained by their victory over the French in South India and also due to their realization of the political and military weakness of Indian states. The British refused to pay taxes on their goods entering Calcutta which was under their control. All this naturally annoyed the young Nawab who also suspected that the company was hostile to him and was supporting his rivals.  The spark was provided by the fortifi cation of Calcutta by the British without the prior permission of the Nawab and their refusal to demolish the fortifi cation when ordered by the Nawab. While the French obeyed his order, the English refused to do so for their ambition had been whetted and their confi dence enhanced by their victories in the Carnatic. The English Company was now determined to remain in Bengal even against the wishes of the Nawab and to trade on its own terms. This amounted to a direct challenge to the Nawab’s sovereignty. How was Bengal Conquered?

 Siraj seized the English factory at Kasimbazar, marched on to Calcutta and occupied Fort William in 1756. He then retired from Calcutta to celebrate his easy victory letting the English escape with their ships. After receiving aid from Madras the British under Clive reconquered Calcutta and compelled the Nawab to concede all demands of the English. But the British were not satisfi ed with these concessions and had decided to install a more pliant tool in Siraj’s place in order to achieve their higher aims. After organizing a web of intrigue and treachery with the leading men of the Nawab’s court they presented the Nawab with an impossible set of demands. Both sides had realized that a war to the fi nish would

www.iasscore.in 17 MODERN HISTORY

have to be fought between them. They met for battle in the fi eld of Plassey on 23rd June, 1757. The Battle of Plassey was a battle only in name, for the major part of the nawab’s army (led by the traitors Mir Jafar and Rai Durlabh) took no part in the fi ghting. What was its out come?

 The Battle of Plassey had great political signifi cance. It paved the way of the British mastery of Bengal and eventually of the whole of India. The English became the de-facto rulers of Bengal. Mir Jafar, the new nawab, remained a puppet in their hands. The English utilized the resources of Bengal to enhance their fi nancial and political interest in Bengal. They would maintain and equip a large army which played a decisive role in exterminating not only the French in India but also gradually the native rulers as well. In fact the conquest of India by the British began with the Battle of Plassey.  Further, it enhanced the prestige of the British in India, and made them at a single stroke a major contender for the Indian empire. The Company had defeated the supposedly very powerful Nawab of Bengal thus exposing India’s political weakness.  The offi cers of the Company were also paid huge amounts of money as bribe or reward.  Above all the battle marked the beginning of the ruthless economic exploitation of India by the British. The drain of wealth from India to Britain began with Bengal and later spread to other parts of India resulting in her utter impoverishment.  Yet the Battle of Plassey was not the fi nal round of the struggle between the English and the Nawabs of Bengal for the complete mastery over Bengal. There was to be one more battle, the Battle of Buxar which was fought in 1764. What were the causes for Battle of Buxar?

 The primary cause of the Battle of Buxar was therefore the confl ict between the English and the Nawab for the sovereign power of Bengal, i.e. who was the real power in Bengal. Mir Qasim was prepared to accept the rights of the Company as a trading corporation but he was not willing to share with it the power of the state. But the English on the other hand, desired that the Nawab should rule according to their wishes. The English expected that Mir Qasim should govern but should remain a puppet in their hands. Instead, Mir Qasim in his desire to maintain his independence, tried to remove corruption from revenue administration and to raise a modern and disciplined army along European lines. All this was not to the liking of the English so they began to think in terms of replacing him.  Further the Company’s servant illegally sold the dastaks to friendly Indian merchants who were thereby able to evade the internal customs duties. These abuses ruined the honest Indian traders through unfair competition and deprived the Nawab of a very important source of revenue. Mir Qasim realized that if these abuses continued he could never hope to make Bengal strong nor free himself of the Company’s control. He therefore, took the drastic step of abolishing all duties on internal trade thus giving his own subjects a concession that the English had seized by force. But the alien merchants were no longer in a mood to tolerate equality between themselves and Indians. They demanded the re-imposition of duties on Indian traders. But the Nawab refused to do so and hence it resulted in an open confl ict between the Company and the Nawab. What was course of the Battle?

 Mir Qasim was defeated in a series of battles in 1763 and fl ed to Awadh where he formed an alliance with Shuja-ud-daula, Nawab of Awadh and Shah Alam the fugitive Mughal emperor. The forces of the three allies clashed with the Company’s army at Buxar in October 1764 and were thoroughly routed.  The Battle of Buxar was one of the most decisive battles in Indian history for it demonstrated the superiority of English arms over the combined forces of two of the major Indian powers, Bengal and Awadh. The battle of Plassey was won by the English more by their diplomatic skill than by their strength of arms. The English with an army of just about 8,000 defeated the army of the three allies which consisted of 40 to 60 thousand soldiers.  Besides, the battle fi rmly established the British as masters of Bengal, Bihar and Orissa. Robert Clive, who had returned to Bengal in 1765 as its Governor, decided to seize the opportunity in Bengal and gradually transfer the authority of Government from the Nawab to the Company.  From Shah Alam, who was still the titular head of the Mughal empire, the company secured the Diwani (the right to collect revenue) of Bengal, Bihar and Orissa. Thus, its control over Bengal was legalized and the revenues of this most prosperous region placed at its command.

18 www.iasscore.in MODERN HISTORY

 Finally, the battle placed Awadh at the mercy of the British. The Nawab of Awadh was made to pay a war indemnity of fi ve million rupees to the Company. Moreover the two signed an alliance by which the company promised to support the Nawab against any outside attack provided he paid for the services of the troops sent to his aid. This alliance made the Nawab a dependent of the Company. This proved to be disastrous for both Awadh and the rest of the country. The British had very shrewdly decided to consolidate their acquisition of Bengal and the in the mean while, to use Awadh as a buffer or a barrier state between their possessions and the Marathas.

Conquest of Maharashtra What were the Early Relations?

 Peshwa Madhava Rao who succeeded his father Peshwa Balaji Baji Rao in 1761 and who ranks among great Peshwas, maintained unity among the Maratha chiefs and nobles and very soon recovered the power and prestige of the Marathas which they lost in the Third battle of Panipat. The Marathas once more triumphed both in the North and the South. He came into contact with the English and was conscious of their military effi ciency.  But he did not attach much value to them and regarded them as insignifi cant factor in the Indian politics. But the British became conscious of the Maratha power and were determined to weaken it. They regarded the Marathas as the greatest obstruction in the fulfi llment of their ambition of building an empire in India and therefore were keen to weaken their power at the earliest opportunity. They got their opportunity very soon after the death of Peashwa Madhava Rao in 1772. Their attempt to repeat the exploits of their countrymen in Madras and Bengal involved them in a long war with the Marathas from 1775 to 1782 known as the First Anglo-Maratha War. What were the causes for First Anglo-Maratha War?

 The struggle for power among the Marathas provided an opportunity to the British to interfere in their affairs. At this time, an intense struggle for power was taking place among the Marathas between the supporters of the infant Peshawa Madhava Rao led by Nana Phadnis and his opponents’ led by Raghunatha Rao. After the death of Peshawa Madhava Rao in 1772, his younger brother Narayana Rao succeeded him. But the new Peshwa was murdered by his uncle Ragunatha Rao who wanted to become the Peshwa.  The British tried to take advantage of this struggle by intervening on behalf of one of the two parties. So when Raghunatha Rao sought English help the British offi cials in Bombay readily agreed and concluded with him the Treaty of Surat in 1775. By the terms of this treaty Raghunatha Rao had to give the English Salsette and Bassein in return for their help.  Peace was fi nally concluded between the two in 1782 by the Treaty of Salbai. According to the treaty: (a) both parties agreed to return each other’s territory conquered during the course of the war; (b) the English gave up the cause of Raghunatha Rao who was to be given a pension by the Peshwa; and (c) No Europeans except the British were to received at the Poona court. Thus, by the Treaty of Salbai the status quo was maintained.  This war though did not end in victory for either side, gave the British 20 years of peace with the Marathas, the strongest Indian power of the day. The British utilized this period to consolidate their rule over Bengal presidency while the Marathas frittered away their energy in bitter mutual squabbles. Moreover, the treaty enabled the British to exert pressure on Mysore as the Marathas promised to help them in recovering their territories from Haider Ali.  Thus the British by the war and the treaty on the one hand saved themselves from the combined opposition of Indian powers and on the other, succeeded in dividing the Indian powers. The treaty was in fact a successful stroke of diplomacy on the part of Warren Hastings who said that it was a successful negotiation of peace in the most of desperate period of his distress. What were the causes of Second Anglo-Maratha War?

 After the creation of the Madras Presidency in 1801, the only major Indian power left outside the sphere of British control were the Marathas whose internal affairs further deteriorated within a span of 20 years after the First Anglo-Maratha War. The internal squabbles of the Marathas led to a new round of hostilities between the English and the Marathas. This resulted in the Second Anglo-Maratha War (1803-05).

www.iasscore.in 19 MODERN HISTORY

 Wellesley’s aggressive policy of interface in the internal affairs of the Marathas was an important factor for the Second War. Wellesley who became the Governor-General in 1798 felt it imperative to bring as many Indian states as possible under British control. One of the important methods which he used to achieve this political aims was the Subsidiary Alliance.  Under this system: (1) The ruler of the allying Indian State was compelled to accept the permanent stationing of a British force within his territory and also to pay a subsidy for its maintenance; (2) A British Resident was posted at the court; (3) He could not employ any European in his service without the approval of the British; (4) He could not negotiate with any other Indian ruler without consulting the Governor-General; (5) The British in turn undertook to defend the ruler from his enemies; and (6) They also promised non-interference in the internal affairs of the allied state.  While the practice of helping an Indian ruler with a paid British force was not new, it was now given a defi nite shape by Wellesley who used it to subordinate the Indian states to the paramount authority of the country.  The immediate reason for the war was the fratricidal strife among the Maratha chiefs, leading to the signing of the Subsidiary Treaty at Bassein (1802) by the Peshwa with the British. The Marathas chiefs consisting of the Peshwa at Poona, the Gaekwad at Baroda, the Sindhia at Gwalior, Holkar at Indore and Bhonsle at Nagpur were engaged in bitter fratricidal strife blind to the real danger from the rapidly advancing foreigner. By entering into a treaty with the Peshwa who was regarded as the head of the Maratha confederacy, the British undoubtedly gained prestige. But to draw practical advantage from the treaty the English had to fi ght a serious war against the Marathas. What was the course of The Second War?

Unfortunately, the Maratha chiefs did not unite against their common enemy. When Sindia and Bhonsle fought the British, Holkar was a silent spectator while Gaekwad rendered help to the British. When Holkar took up arms against the British Bhonsle and Sindhia nursed their wounds. Moreover the Maratha chief underestimated the enormous strength of the enemy and went into battle without adequate preparations. As a result, though Holkar succeeded in holding of his own against the British both Sindhia and Bhonsle had to sign the Subsidiary treaties with the British. What was its outcome?

 The war and the subsequent Subsidiary treaties had far-reaching effects on the Marathas as well as the British. The Marathas by signing the treaties virtually signed away their independence. They lost the right of self-defense, of maintaining diplomatic relations, of employing foreign experts and of setting their disputes with their neighbors. In fact, they lost all vestiges of sovereignty in external matter and became increasingly subservient to the British Resident who interfered in the day-to-day administration of the state.  The Subsidiary system also led to the disbandment of the armies of the protected Maratha states. Lakhs of soldiers and offi cers were deprived of their hereditary livelihood, spreading misery and degradation in the country.  The Maratha rulers on their part tended to neglect the interests of their people and started to oppress them as they were no longer afraid of a popular rebellion.  The Subsidiary Alliance System was on the other hand extremely advantageous to the British. They could now maintain a large army at the cost of the Indian states. They could fi ght wars far away from their own territories. They controlled the defence and foreign relations of the protected ally and had a powerful force stationed at the very heart of the ally territory hence they could overthrow him anytime and annex his territories by declaring him to be ineffi cient. Thus the Second Anglo-Maratha War made the Company the paramount power in India. Third Anglo-Maratha War

 The Second Anglo-Maratha War had no doubt shattered the power of the Maratha chiefs but not their spirit. In order to achieve this, the English had to fi ght another war known as the Third Anglo-Maratha War (1817-1818) with the Marathas. The Marathas resented being deprived of their freedom. Further the rigid control exercised by the British Residents on the Maratha chiefs pushed the Marathas to make a desperate last attempt to regain their independence and prestige.  The consequences of this war sealed the fate of the Marathas once for all. The Peshwa was dethroned and pensioned off to Bithur near Kanpur. His territories were annexed and the enlarged Presidency of Bombay was brought into existence. However in order to satisfy Maratha pride, the small kingdom of

20 www.iasscore.in MODERN HISTORY

Satara was created out of the Peshwa’s lands and given to the descendant of Chatrapathi Shivaji who ruled it as a complete dependent of the British. Finally all the Maratha chiefs had to cede large tracts of their territories to the company. Thus, after the war the Maratha chiefs, too, like the rulers of other Indian states began to exist at the mercy of British power.

Conquest of Sindh Why was Sindh conquered?

 The conquest and annexation of Sindh by the British was partly due to the commercial advantages of River Indus. The Indus opened the sea to the Punjab and other parts of North West India which facilitated trade and commerce not only with these places but also with Afghanistan and Central Asia through them.  It was also caused by the growing Anglo-Russian rivalry in Europe and Asia and the consequent British fears that Russia might attack India through Afghanistan or Persia. It was further felt that this policy could be successfully pursued only if Sindh was brought under direct British rule. How was it Conquered?

Sindh was opened to British trade by a treaty signed in 1832 between the Amirs of Sindh and the British. Soon after the chiefs of Sindh known as Amirs, were made to sign Subsidiary treaties in 1839. By these treaties Sindh virtually passed into the hands of the English.

Resistance of Indian Powers and causes of their Failure  The British succeeded in defeating all the major Indian powers and established their direct rule over major parts of India while bringing other parts under their indirect rule through the imposition of the Subsidiary treaties on the native rulers. The Indian powers - notably the Maratha, Mysore and the Sikh states - did put up some stiff resistance and scored some initial victories over the British but ultimately succumbed to the English power one after another.  The foremost cause was the absence of unity among the Indian powers. All the Indian powers that were conquered by the British had emerged on the ruins of the Mughal Empire. Even though these powers (autonomous states) were practically independent they maintained the fi ction of the sovereignty of the Mughal Empire but this was soon demolished when the British took possession of Delhi. These new Indian states that had arisen had little in common with each other. Each was keen to expand itself at the expense of the other. This lack of unity made them an easy target to the British. The offi cials of the English East India Company were on the other hand united in purpose and even their far away outposts were under a united command. This unifi ed control made them a central force in the political affairs of India from 1757 onwards.  The lack of unity among Indian states was accompanied by the lack of unity within each state, i.e., among the people of each state. The British central force was in fact victorious only when internal weaknesses within a state became acute. Thus as disunity emerged in a state it lost its independence. These conditions were also created by the British by its policy of divide and rule. It was practiced by the British offi cials with great effi ciency and success in the case of almost all the Indian states.  Another basic reason lay in the inability of the Indian powers to devise a stable and effi cient political order which could retain the loyalty of the subjects. The Indian powers could not even be an alternative to the dying Mughal Empire. The Indian powers rarely had any effi cient civil and fi nancial administrative systems. Thus, whenever there was a war, the necessary civil and fi nancial support did not come from the subjects. The British on the other hand could always depend on their war efforts.  The case of the Marathas makes the above point quite clear. They had recovered from the military disaster at Panipat to the extent that in the 1770’s they were considered to be the only enemy the British had in India. But the Maratha leaders instead of improving and strengthening their administration and fi nances were in constant confl ict with one another thus making it easier for the British to defeat them one after another.  All the above mentioned weakness of the Indian powers was further accentuated by their technological and economic backwardness. Their backwardness particularly in military technology became an increasingly crucial factor when the Industrial Revolution took place in England.

www.iasscore.in 21 MODERN HISTORY

Evolution of British Paramountcy Over Princely States

 By 1855-56 the British Empire in India was fi rmly established. Major portions of the country was under direct British rule. In other areas Indian rulers were completely dependent on the British. In short, the British had emerged as the paramount power in India. This British paramountcy was established essentially by two methods: (a) by outright annexation through wars, and (b) by brining the Indian states within the Subsidiary System which often led to their annexation through one pretext or the other.  Mysore and Sindh were the best examples of outright annexation through wars. But it was the latter method which was frequently used by the British for establishing their paramountcy. This system had a number of advantages for the British. Under this System of Subsidiary Alliance as evolved by Lord Wellesley the Indian rulers paid for the maintenance of British troops while the British was in no way responsible for the administration including maintenance of law and order within the protected state. The increased expenditure on account of the maintenance of British troops was met by the Indian rulers by levying heavy taxes on the peasants. Assured by a sense of security, the rulers became indifferent to the problems of the people which led to fi nancial crises and breakdown of law and order. Whenever this happened in a state the British were quick to use it as an excuse for annexing the state. Thus the Subsidiary System created conditions for subsequent annexations.  The British also found other excuses for annexation. One such excuse was the applications of the Doctrine of Lapse which was done frequently by Lord Dalhousie during his Governor-Generalship though some others had done it before him. According to this doctrine if an Indian king died without his own son to succeed him, his state was to be annexed by the British. The Indian tradition provided that if a king has no son he could adopt his or wife’s near relation as his son who became his successor. When Indian rulers became dependent on the British the latter had acquired the right to sanction or refuse such an adoption. During Dalhousie’s period it so happened, that many rulers of dependent Indian states died without leaving a male heir to the throne. Dalhousie did not grant permission to the rulers of Jhansi, Nagpur, Satara etc. and instead annexed them. Besides the adopted son of the Peshwa, Nana Sahib was refused the pension which the Peshwa had been receiving. Similarly after the death of the Nawab of the Carnatic his relative was denied the pension. The growing fears of the Indian rulers were further aggravated by the deposition of Wajid Ali Shah the last Nawab of Awadh and its annexation on the charge of mismanagement. Detailed Analysis

 What was the Essence of the British Paramountcy? " The rapid strides with which British paramountcy had progressed in India since 1757 invariably affected the destiny of the Indian states that had arisen on the ruins of the Mughal Empire. Their relations with the British varied according to changing political conditions and the personal views and ambition of the different Governor-Generals. Yet the conviction which developed in the late 18th century and continued up to the early 20th century that the government of the whole of India directly or indirectly by the British was part of a preordained system and had a considerable infl uence in shaping British policy towards the Indian states. It was the outcome of gradual process. During the fi rst phase lasting from 1757 to 1813 the British followed the policy of Ring Fence. In the second phase covering the period from 1813 to 1858 its policy was known as the policy of Subordinate Isolation. The Third phase extending from 1858 to 1947 witnessed the adoption of the policy of Subordinate Union.

Policy of Ring-Fence (1757-1813)  During this period the British as Lee Warner says, ‘endeavored as far as possible to live within a Ring fence and beyond that they avoided intercourse with the chiefs’. The English Company was not yet strong enough to interfere in the internal affairs of the Indian states. More specifi cally the Company had neither the strength nor the resource to defeat the Indian states. It was in fact only one of the important powers in India; the Marathas, the Nizam, the Mysore Nawab, the French, etc., being the other powers.  Warren Hastings, for instance, confronted with the tasks of safeguarding British territories against the encroachments of the Maratha and the militant rulers of Mysore, generally followed the policy of a

22 www.iasscore.in MODERN HISTORY

Ring-Fence, i.e., sought to safeguard the frontiers of the neighboring states by way of precaution. The Pitt’s Indian Act of 1784 even laid down that the home government may not approve of the intervention of her offi cers in the internal affairs of the Indian states. Why was it Implemented?

 A number of other events of this period of 56 years are cited as evidence of the Company’s general policy of no-intervention in the affairs of the Indian states. After the Battle of Buxar, Awadh lay at the mercy of the British but they did not annex it after the Rohilla War. Warren Hastings conferred the conquered territories on the Nawab of Awadh instead of retaining them; the First Anglo-Maratha war ended in the restoration of the status quo by the Treaty of Salbai; and the four Mysore wars benefi ted the allies of the British (Marathas and Nizam) more than the British themselves at least in the short term. How was it Implemented?

 The Subsidiary treaties of Lord Wellesley no doubt established British predominance over some of the Indian states. But in theory these states did not thereby became subject to British paramountcy as they retained their independence in matters of internal administration. All treaties of Wellesley, except that with Mysore were negotiated on terms of equality and reciprocity. What were the Exceptions?

 Yet it cannot be denied that during this period the Company did intervene in the affairs of the Indian states on a number of occasions. Warren Hastings for instance fought the First Maratha War and the Second Mysore War without any justifi able reason. Similarly, Lord Cornwallis fought the Third Mysore War and annexed half of its territory. Lord Wellesley fought the Fourth Mysore War and the Second Maratha War and also compelled the rulers of Hyderabad and Awadh to sign the Subsidiary treaties with the Company. Lord Minto not only concluded the Treaty of Amritsar with Ranjit Singh but also granted protection of the Cis-Sutlej states whose very existence was being endangered by Ranjit Singh.

Policy of Subordinate Isolation (1813-58)  During this period, the British East Indian Company made all states subordinate to itself by compelling their rulers to sign Subsidiary treaties with it. The Indian states, without exception, were prevailed upon to accept the Company as the paramount power in India. They were required to give either money or territory so that the Company could maintain a Subsidiary force either in the concerned state or outside it for its protection. The concerned state could no longer appoint non-English Europeans in its service. It could not conduct any foreign relations except through the British government. In all of its dispute with other states it had to accept British arbitration. In turn, the Company promised the territorial integrity of the state.  In practice, however, all the Indian states entering into Subsidiary Alliance and being dependent on the Company for self-protection began to suffer from the evils of ‘dual government’ like those, which had destroyed Bengal between 1765 and 1772. Regarding pitfalls of the Subsidiary System, Sir Thomas Munro rightly remarked that, ‘it is the natural tendency to render the government of every country in which it exists weak and oppressive to extinguish all honorable spirits among the higher grades of society to degrade and impoverish the whole people’. What was Sub-ordinate Cooperation?

 It was Lord Hasting who transformed the Subsidiary treaties of reciprocity and mutual amity into those of subordinate cooperation and established British paramountcy over most of the Indian states by compelling them to surrender their sovereign rights of making war or peace and negotiating agreements with other powers. Theoretically, these states retained their internal sovereignty but in actual practice they were subject to frequent interference in their internal affairs by the British Residents the quality and amount of this interference varying with the difference in personality and temperament of the offi cers concerned. Despite this imposition of Subordinate cooperation of large numbers of states, Lord Hastings was in principle against the annexation of Indian states. In short he was not an ‘annexationist’. But his successors, however, did not share his views and annexed a number of Indian states on the one pretext or another during the same phase of Subordinate Isolation.

www.iasscore.in 23 MODERN HISTORY

Why and How were some Princely State Annexed?

 The period between the departure of Lord Hastings and the outbreak of the Revolt of 1857 witnessed the growing infl uence of the British over the princely states partly due to the growing executive and controlling authority of the British residents in the sphere of internal administration of these states and partly due to the frank enunciation of policy of annexation by the British Government. This policy of annexation formulated by the Court of Directors as early as 1834 and more clearly stressed by them in 1841 was applied vigorously in the time of Lord Dalhousie. It was an outcome of two aims of the Company’s government viz. the aim of extending British political infl uence by incorporating new territories into the Empire, and that of securing greater facilities for the transport of merchandise and the collection of revenues. Both were meant for tightening the hold of the British over India.  Though William Bentinck was sent to India with a clear instruction to follow the policy of ‘let alone’ towards the Indian states he did make a radical departure from it in some cases. Besides the Home authorities also enunciated the policy of annexation in the course of a few years. Bentinck took over the administration of Mysore in 1831 on the ground of misgovernment by its ruler. He also annexed some other Indian states on different pretexts. The small state of Cachar was annexed in 1832 because its ruler died without leaving a male child and the British refused to accept the claims of any candidate for the vacant throne. The state of Jaintia in Assam was brought under direct British rule in 1835 since its ruler refused to abide by the dictates of the British. In 1834, the ruler of Coorg was accused of conspiring against the British and his territory was annexed.  It was the Governor-Generalship of Lord Dalhousie that witnessed the unprecedented expansion of the British Empire at the cost of several Indian states. Dalhousie went for large scale annexation of native states through the Doctrine of Lapse which meant that in the absence of natural heirs the sovereignty of one category of Indian states viz. the ‘dependent states’ (those created by the British or held on a subordinate tenure by the native rulers from the British) would lapse to the paramount power, i.e. the British. The same rule did not however apply to another category of Indian states viz. the ‘protected allies’ (those which were neither created by nor held on a subordinate tenure from the British).  The Indian states that were annexed by Dalhousie through the Doctrine of lapse were Satara (1848), Jaitpur and Sambalpur (1849), Bhagat (1850), Udaipur (1852), Nagpur (1853), and Jhansi (1854). As mentioned earlier the distinction between the dependent states and protected allies was too fi ne. Moreover it is open to debate whether all the above states could be considered as dependent states.  The Doctrine of Lapse was applied by him even to suspend the titles and pensions of some of the native rulers on the ground that ‘appearances without the reality of authority were sure to shake native confi dence in the good faith of the Company’. The victims in this respect were the successors the Nawab of Carnatic, Raja of Tanjore and the last Peshwa. Dalhousie also wanted to abolish the title of Mughal Emperor in which however he was not supported by the Court of Directors.  Apart from outright conquest and the Doctrine of Lapse the British government also enunciated the maxim of the good of the governed for annexing some Indian states whose administration was ‘fraught with suffering to millions’. The annexation of Awadh on the ground of misgovernment is the most typical example of the application of this maxim.  It is true that the Subsidiary system and the Doctrine of Lapse were not invented by Lord Dalhousie. Both of them had been asserted by the Court of Directors earlier since 1834 and had also been applied in some cases. Earlier, annexation under the Doctrine of Lapse had already been applied to Mandovi in 1839, to Kolaba and Jalaun in 1840 and to Surat in 1842.

Policy of Subordinate Union (1858-1947)  The Revolt of 1857 made the British reverse their policy towards the princely states. Prior to the Revolt the British had made use of every opportunity to annex the Indian states but after it they abandoned the policy of annexation in favour of another policy known as the policy of ‘Subordinate Union’. During the Revolt most of the native rulers had not only remained loyal to the British but had actively helped the latter in suppressing it. Their loyalty was now rewarded with the announcement that their right to adopt heirs would be respected and the integrity of their territories guaranteed against future annexation. The experience of the Revolt had clearly convinced the British that the princely states could serve as useful allies and supporters in case of popular revolts.  The British therefore decided that they should use the princely states as fi rm props of their rule in India. In 1876, Queen Victoria assumed the title of the Empress of India to emphasize the British sovereignty over the entire Indian subcontinent. Lord Curzon later made it clear that the princes ruled their states

24 www.iasscore.in MODERN HISTORY

merely as agents of the British Crown. The princes accepted this subordinate position and willingly became junior partners in the empire because they were assured of their continued existence as rulers of their states. Why was it Implemented?

 Before the assumption of the government of British India by the Crown, the relations of the British government with the princely states were neither uniform nor well defi ned. The fi rst defect was indeed inevitable, because different states had concluded different types of treaties at different times and in different circumstances. As regarding the second, the policy of a growing power like the British was naturally modifi ed from time to time in consequence of various circumstances and infl uences. Much also depended upon personal factors. Wellesley, Hastings and Dalhousie as mentioned earlier, adopted a far more aggressive attitude than others, although no new policy was formulated by the Company during their regimes.  Consequently, there was a condition of uncertainty and confusion in the minds of the rulers of the native states. The British had not only interfered in their internal affairs but also either deposed or defi nitely lowered the status of their rulers.  The Court of Directors openly adopted the policy of annexation in 1814 and Dalhousie put it in practice to the maximum extent. But the Revolt of 1857 clearly demonstrated the merits and demerits of this policy when the government was transferred to the Crown, and the policy towards the Princely states was entirely reoriented. How was it Implemented?

 Like many other changes in British India, the new policy of ‘Subordinate Union’ was only slowly and gradually evolved, partly by written declaration of policy, but mainly by precedents and conventions. The new policy was heralded by a defi nite pledge in the Queen’s Proclamation (1858).  It appears from the post 1858 events that the new policy was to punish the ruler for misgovernment and, if necessary, to depose him but not to annex the state for his misdeeds. A corollary to this new policy was to interfere in the internal administration before misgovernment could reach such proportions as would justify more drastic measures. A few concrete examples will explain the trend of the new policy.  The Paramount Power asserted and exercised the right of deposing princes or forcing them to abdicate in certain circumstances as in the case of Baroda and Manipur. In the case of Baroda, on the death of his brother in 1870, Mudhar Rao Gaikwad succeeded to the throne of Baroda. The administration of the state soon deteriorated to such an extent that the British government appointed a Commission of Enquiry in 1874 to investigate into the matter and suggest reforms.  In the case of Manipur its ruler was overthrown in 1891 by a rebellion led by his brother. The British government was not willing to restore the ruler as he was considered unfi t for ruling. The following principles were laid down in the Manipur case. " The British government were to have the undoubted right to settle the succession and intervene in the case of rebellion against the ruler. " Principles of International Law were not to apply to the Indian states. " Resistance to the Imperial orders was to be construed as rebellion. " The Paramount Power was to have power to infl ict punishments on those who put to death its agents while discharging their lawful duties imposed on them.  The case of Baroda and Manipur afford a striking contrast to those of Awadh, Punjab, Coorg and many other states which were annexed during the rule of the Company for almost similar reasons. The former show the readiness of the Paramount Power not only to intervene but if necessary to take adequate steps for remedying the state of affairs in cases of disputed succession, misgovernment, internal, rebellion etc. On the other hand they have equally demonstrated their unwillingness to annex the Indian states.  These illustration defi nitely demonstrate that annexation of Indian states became a thing of the past, and neither failure of naturals heirs nor misgovernment on the part of any ruler constituted any danger to the existence of a state. In that sense, the Indian state have undoubtedly benefi ted by the change of government from the Company to the Crown. But corresponding with this increase in security and stability, there was a steady decrease in their status. This was partly inevitable and partly the result of a deliberate policy. **********

www.iasscore.in 25