The colonisation of India is a good example of the mechanisms that drove the expansion of the Empire. As early as 1600, the East India Company (EIC) was founded by London merchants. Equipped with a charter from Queen Elizabeth I., the company was initially allowed to handle all British trade with India for 15 years but resulted in a trade monopoly that ultimately lasted, with a few interruptions, until the organisation was stripped of its power in 1858.
The subcontinent was largely ruled by the Mughal Empire. But by the 18th century, it was in decline and local rulers were gaining power. As a result, the central powers’ tax revenues declined. The EIC helped soften the effect, for example, by handling foreign trade for the Mughals.
However, relations between Mughal rulers and the EIC were not always the best. The British merchants naturally had their own profits in mind. There were conflicts of interest and, from time to time, they went to war with each other. As a result, whole regions fell to the trading company, which controlled them more or less directly. The EIC thus contributed to the erosion of the Mughal Empire until the Mughals were no longer masters in their own home.
The EIC also dealt with local rulers, and they in turn became dependent on the trading company. The driving force was not necessarily the EIC itself, but individuals. Officially, the company was controlled from London. However, due to the great distance from India and the resulting long communication channels, nothing worked without the initiative of its local representatives. And these interpreted their competences generously, often to push their personal agenda (e.g., their profit).
Perhaps a company employee gave a loan to a local ruler, on behalf of the company or privately. Perhaps because the ruler was waging war against a neighbour. The loan could be repaid with the loot from the raid, or by handing over trading rights, control of resources or economic sectors.
Perhaps the borrower's plans did not work out as expected, maybe he was about to lose the war. To protect the investment, the company army intervened and won the conflict. The local ruler was now even deeper in debt to the British and had to pay even higher taxes or give up more power.
At the beginning of the 19th century, a large part of the subcontinent was under EIC control. The rule was mostly indirect, the local rulers continued to govern in their territories, but nothing happened against the will of the merchants.
The EIC had gained political power but was overwhelmed with the task. At the same time, the question was raised at home whether a trading company should be endowed with such power at all. The company was nationalised, and a governor-general was appointed to lead it.
However, the British did not withdraw from India's political structures. How did the United Kingdom, after all a country with liberal, democratic elements, justify its rule over foreign peoples? Here, the imperialists were helped by a wave of Christian revivalism in Britain.
Many Britons had begun to live their faith more actively. In pursuit of Christian deeds, they turned their gaze to the overseas territories. After the loss of the American colonies, they found mainly non-Christian cultures, full of people who ‘needed’ to be converted. The EIC had tended to discourage Christianisation in their territories, as any potential conflict could jeopardise their business interests. The British state, on the other hand, based its rule on the missionary urge of its citizens.
And the ideological basis was soon expanded. The United Kingdom portrayed itself as a well-meaning force that wanted to lead India into modernity. The population was not only to be Christianised, but Europeanised. India was to catch up with Britain in its development, to be released into independence as a free, modern state once that goal was accomplished.
With the new agenda, the British began to interfere more in domestic affairs. English was declared the official language of the administration. And judges passed sentences according to British law, rather than along traditional legal lines.
Now the conflicts increased. In the upper class, Muslims were replaced by Hindus. Many small farmers became impoverished, because in disputes between debtors and creditors, the creditors were strengthened with the transition to British law.
There were also problems with Indian army recruits. Their rifle cartridges, for example, were exposed to animal fats such as pig fat. Some of the cartridges had to be put in the mouth during the loading process. Muslims do not eat pork, Hindus no meat at all. Animal fat had no place in their mouths. The prescribed renunciation of the tilaka[1] during service was equally problematic. Although the British authorities adapted the rules and equipment over time, the soldiers did not have much confidence in their masters, and mutinies broke out again and again.
In May 1857, disciplinary measures triggered such an uprising, which quickly developed into a general insurrection in northern and central India. Some local rulers sided with the British, others supported the rebels. Massacres of defenceless civilians occurred again and again. In Kanpur, the leader of a local uprising is said to have executed 73 captured British women and 124 children by local butchers (His troops had refused execute his order.)
From July onwards, the British began to fight back and won victory after victory, despite the numerical superiority of the rebels. The rebels lacked organisation; the British had better equipment.
Because of the massacres, many British officers did not stop their troops from committing atrocities. They looted, pillaged, tortured and raped. Prisoners were forced to perform acts that violated their religion. Muslims had to eat pork, Hindus were not cremated after their execution, but buried. They had to dig the graves themselves beforehand.
Delhi was recaptured in September 1857. A suppression of the uprising was foreseeable. But due to the size of the country, its end dragged on until the first half of 1859.
At home, many British were shocked by the brutality of the insurgents and approved the atrocities committed by their troops. Others were disgusted by the ruthlessness of their own military. The actions had nothing to do with a benevolent power that promoted prosperity and civilisation or even Christian values. However, both factions were united in the realisation that something had to change.
In August 1858, the British Parliament passed a Government of India Act that reorganised the status of India. The East India Company was stripped of its power and the Mughal Empire disappeared for good. A large part of the subcontinent was turned into a British crown colony.
The morale foundation of the continued rule was the "uncivilised" behaviour of the insurgents. It was argued that Indians would never reach the same level of development as Europeans. The subcontinent needed permanent British leadership.
Over the next decades, India developed very differently from British colonies with a majority of white settlers. The latter were gradually granted more self-government based on liberal principles such as freedom and equality. White colonies became Dominions, a kind of state within a state, whose internal affairs were regulated by local institutions. Only foreign and security policy matters remained in the hands of the UK and the British monarchy provided the head of state.
However, the Dominions happily ignored the restrictions. For example, Canada soon concluded its own trade treaties with the USA. And Canadian settlers took possession of royal land. The Dominions developed into quasi-free states without much British resistance. India and other non-white colonies could only dream of this.
Note: If you would like to be informed about new blogposts by e-mail, please register at the top right of the page.
[1] Tilaka or tika are Hindu blessing signs that are often worn on the forehead.