Why was Britain able to establish an Empire in India?

Revision as of 21:05, 6 April 2016 by Ewhelan (talk | contribs) (Created page with "Why was Britain able to establish an Empire in India? Britain was able to dominate the Indian sub-continent, that includes modern-day India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Sri Lank...")
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Why was Britain able to establish an Empire in India?

Britain was able to dominate the Indian sub-continent, that includes modern-day India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka. The British were able to dominate the sub-continent for almost two centuries. How was a country, several thousand miles away and much smaller in terms of the population come to dominate an entire sub-continent? This was as a direct result of a unique a series of series of circumstances that allow Britain to establish its authority over tens of millions of people. These were the decline of the Mughal Empire, a lack of unity among the local inhabitants and a clever policy of retaining local elites in power.

Background

The British first established trading posts in India. They first came to trade and not to conquer. The Anglo-Indian trade was monopolised by the East India Company. This was a company, that was owned by private shareholders. Over time, the company earned spectacular profits from the trade with India and they became increasingly influential in the affairs of Britain. They eventually even established a private army. The East Indian forces in the 1750s were led by Rober Clive (later Clive of India), and he defeated Indian, French and other forces that were contesting British influence in India [1]". By 1760, much of the sub-continent was under the direct or indirect influence of the East India Company [2]". The Company was in turn influenced by the British government. London effectively let the East Indian Company rule Indian in its name. In the remaining decades of the eighteenth century, the British, through the East India Company expanded their influence. They were resisted by native monarchs such as Tipu Sultan and the powerful Sikh state. Arthur Wellesley, later the Duke of Wellington, achieved significant victories against those Indian states that defied British influence [3]". By 1800, much of the Indian sub-continent was under the de-facto control of the East India Company, which was supervised by the British government.

Decline of the Mughal Empire

In 1700, the Indian sub-continent was largely unified under the Mughal dynasty. This Muslim dynasty had conquered much of South Asia and brought a degree of peace and prosperity to the land [4]" . However, by 1750, the Mughal Empire was in decline. The Mughal’s were brilliant administrators and were great patrons of the arts. However, they were unable to directly administer their territories and they often delegated authority to appointees. These were to supply men and equipment to the Mughal army and pay taxes. Over time, these local leaders became increasingly powerful and became independent of the Mughal Court. This weakened the Mughal Emperor and the last truly effective emperor was Aurangzeb. He had been Islamic fundamentalists and he had departed from the traditionally tolerant policies of the Mughals and this led to much resentment among the majority Hindus. This was to spark a series of Hindu revolts by groups such as the Marathas. By 1750, much of Indian only paid a nominal obedience to the Mughal Empire. In reality, power was now in the hands of a multitude of Muslim and Hindi local rulers, known as Rajahs or Sultans. India was politically fragmented by the time that the British started to expand in India and this greatly facilitated their growing influence in the sub-continent. If Britain had been faced with a strong government, it is highly unlikely that they would have been able to establish their empire in South Asia [5]" .

Indirect Rule India was not only weak at this time it was also divided among many competing local leaders. The fragmentation of the Mughal Empire meant that there was a great deal if instability over much of Indian. Areas that came under the direct and indirect influence of the British tended to be more stable [6]" . Many Indians welcomes the stability that the British brought, especially in the late eighteenth century, although they resented the various taxes that were imposed on them, by the foreigners. The British adopted a very clever strategy in India when it came to administering their new found territories. They did not directly administer the majority of their new territories at least at first. They often left the local rulers in place, with all their privileges and wealth. They also did not interfere with the local landowning elites. The British tended to rule through these elites. They used them to collect taxes and enforce law and order, and in return, they were allowed a measure of autonomy in their local areas. These tactics meant that many local Indian elites, both Hindu, and Muslim, accepted British influence. Furthermore, the British tolerated all the various creeds and beliefs in India. They did not seek to impose any religion or ideology on the Indians and in a sense they revived the tolerant policies of many Indian rulers such as Ashoka and Akbar the Great. This reconciled many Indians to British Raj[7]" .

Lack of a National Consciousness Nationalism is a modern phenomenon. In the eighteenth century, there was no real national identity in India. The many people in the Indian sub-continent did not regard themselves as Indians. It was only in the twentieth century that the people of the sub-continent had a sense of belonging to a nation. The majority of people identified with their tribe, clan ethnic group or religion. This meant that the peoples of the sub-continent were very divided among themselves. This allowed the British to use some of the natives to help them in running and governing the Empire. This is best seen in the British policies on the Indian army. The British East India Company regularly used native Indian troops in order to defend and expand their territory in the sub-continent. Without these Indian troops, it is highly unlikely that the British would ever have been able to establish their ascendency in the sub-continent. It was also a factor in the conquest of large areas of Asia and Africa by Europeans at this time and later [8]".

Conclusion

Britain on the face of it- should never have been able to conquer India. It had no direct presence in the country. Indeed, they left the conquest of India, to the company, the East Indian Company. However, the British East India Company was able to lay the foundation of an empire in the Indian sub-continent because of the decline of the Mughal Empire, the country was divided politically and there was no sense of national unity while they cleverly used the local elites to administer their new domains. It was these factors that helped to establish British rule in India, that lasted almost two hundred years, until 1947 [9]".
  1. ↑ Bence-Jones, Mark. Clive of India.(London, Constable & Robinson Limited, 1974), p. 89 #.
  2. ↑ Bence-Jones, p. 45#.
  3. ↑ Harrington, Jack. Sir John Malcolm and the Creation of British India (New York, Palgrave Macmillan, 2010), p. 119#.
  4. ↑ Harrington, p. 67#.
  5. ↑ Spear, Percival , A History of India, Volume 2, New Delhi and London: Penguin Books.1990) p. 298#.
  6. ↑ Spear, p. 98 #.
  7. ↑ Peers, Douglas M. India under Colonial Rule 1700–1885, (Harlow and London: Pearson Longmans, 2003). p. 163#.
  8. ↑ Smith, Simon British Imperialism 1750–1970. (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1998), p 78
  9. ↑ Smith, p. 78
Retrieved from "https://cdn.dailyhistory.org/index.php?title=Why_was_Britain_able_to_establish_an_Empire_in_India%3F&oldid=1262"