Britain's "Cooperation" With India a Power Play
Shashi Tharoor, an Indian politician, who served for 29 years at the United Nations, ultimately becoming undersecretary general, has been highly critical of empires – and with good reason. Tharoor was particularly critical of the British Empire, which he believed plundered India for all it had to offer in order to benefit the British.
Tharoor’s argument is supported by the fact that, “ironically, the British used raw material and exported the finished products to India and the rest of the world, the industrial equivalent of adding insult to injury.” This process of eliminating the skilled workforce in India got rid of competition as the Indians were simply unable to compete with machines in either cost or speed.
However, it was not wholly detested by the Indians, some of whom could not have afforded the finished products before this time, but were now able to afford those products manufactured by the British. Furthermore, the economic situation in India was abused by very few in the East India Company, and became a much fairer system once the British government took full control in 1858. Yet the system still concentrated on benefiting the elite few. Once the idea existed that the Indians should have a greater say in economic issues the “upper-caste” Hindus then dominated these newly established governmental positions. They showed themselves to be “more receptive” and subsequently they bolstered their political and economic influence by securing new positions.
These new reforms were aimed at helping the economy. On the whole, they took into consideration India’s need to adapt and modernize, and to be brought into the new era of industrialization so as to have a more effective relationship of cooperation with the British. Yet, these reforms were undoubtedly questionable as they were carried out with British interests first They were, however, reforms nonetheless. It may be argued that India, by means of these economic reforms, had been unwittingly drawn into Britain’s own strategic calculations; and that competition with the French and the Russians for overseas territory. Britain’s involvement in India increased in the hope that India’s cooperation would benefit its imperial ambitions.
What reforms did Britain intoduce?
Educational Reform
During Lord William Bentinck’s tenure as governor-general, between 1828-35, there was change in the government’s education policy. He appointed Thomas Babington Macaulay, a renowned educationist and the chairman of the Committee of Public Instruction to chair a committee on education. Bentinck introduced what was known as the infiltration theory – bringing conventional teaching to a small number of upper- and middle-class students. He believed that a single shelf of a European library was equal to the whole literature of India and Arabia. In effect, this opinion was the result of his total ignorance and blind nationalism.
Bentnick wanted to create and establish a substantial number of black Asians who would support the British government. The government approved the Macaulay proposal. As a result, education in the English language and the teaching of science started spreading quickly. Calcutta Medical College and the Elphinstone College at Bombay were established the same year (1835). Between 1836-42, under the aegis of Lord Auckland, the government sanctioned more money for the propagation of traditional English education. Cooperation was critical, as this method ensured that if future generals were educated in a way the British found suitable, cooperation would continue.
Bengali Revolution of 1857
The revolution in Bengal in 1857, the product of a number of unrelated causes, was a catalyst for government intervention as well as for the enforcement of the government’s Regulating Act of 1773, which increased Parliament’s control over the EIC’s activities. Parliament was worried that the company would implode as a result of poor financial management on the part of the bookkeepers. The British government, as a result, would have to provide financial or even military aid and it wanted to avoid confrontation at all costs.
Political Cooperation
Political cooperation was extremely important between the Indians and the British. The British government wanted this cooperation so as to add an air of legitimacy to their rule. The revolution in Bengal in 1757 hastened the transformation of the EIC, from simply a trading corporation into a trading corporation with “territorial responsibilities.” In an attempt to protect their territorial and trade interests, the EIC had been drawn into Indian politics. This meant that it was necessary for the EIC to exert power. The British government wanted a secure system of rule over the EIC that would provide “security, stability and a measure of accountability’.”
Understandably, it was necessary for the British government to supervise the company in India. In part, due to the EIC being in debt, loans were needed to keep the company afloat up to 1772. Some of the shortcomings of the Act of 1773 were addressed in subsequent legislation, most notably in Pitt’s India Act of 1784. Pitt’s act intended to boost the authority of the governor-general, granting him extensive powers. Furthermore, Pitt’s Act later laid the foundations for what was to become known as dual government. These acts greatly increased British involvement but did not make it necessary to have Indian cooperation.
Another way the British fostered political cooperation was through the introduction of a governor-general in 1774. Along with a council of four members, the governor-general had overall authority over the EIC territories. The first governor was Warren Hastings, to whom culture was incredibly important. Hastings made an effort to assimilate and learned Urdu rather than forcing the Indians to learn English.
There was a growing public feeling that there should be a moral foundation to the growing Indian empire. The Prime Minister, North, believed that the EIC’s territory would be “better administered” by the crown. The resulting new laws – the East India Company Loan Act and the East India Company Regulating Act – made it possible for the government to extend a loan to the company in exchange for recognition of the British state's ultimate authority over the Indian territories.
The lease gave it continued political control of its Indian territory in exchange for a payment of £40,000 every two years. Further government control came in 1784, under Prime Minister Pitt the Younger, who created a committee of six government appointees, known as the Board of Control, which monitored and the directed the company’s policies.
Despite his attempt to assimilate, Hastings was entangled in charges of the EIC’s corruption. He was subsequently acquitted in 1787 after a seven-year trial. The whole affair further demonstrates the increasing involvement of the British government in India’s affairs.
How Britain Controlled India
Lawrence James, an English historian, writer and educationist, who, being fairly positive and favorable towards the Empire, points to Britain’s success in India being, due to the goodwill of the Indians. As he suggests, “the white man’s omniscience was not just a matter of administrative capability; although this was obviously important. It was his mystique which sustained the Raj.”
This is supported by William Horne, who served in the Madras government from 1882-1914, and stated that “prestige of race” alone upheld British rule. How else, he reasoned, could “millions whom had never seen a British soldier, and rarely a sepoy, submit so passively to alien rule?” James goes on to state “Indians responded to their immediate master, the collector of his equivalent – the ruler whom most of India knows, the man whom, if he is worth his salt, she fears and respects, often even loves.”
This suggests that the Indians may have cooperated for many reasons. In addition, that cooperation may even have resulted from the Indians’ love for the British. The respect that was shown to the British undoubtedly led to Britain’s increasing involvement in the country. The fact that the cooperation of India’s peoples was expected by the British emboldened their actions and allowed for increased involvement.
The fact that the British did not establish a stable government in India until 1858 highlights the complex relationship between the country’s princes and the British. Political cooperation and increasing British involvement are inexorably linked. Had British involvement in India developed solely as a result of the cooperation of India’s peoples, it would not have been a process so costly in terms of lives.
As James said, speaking on British involvement in India, “No obstacles could stand in the way of British willpower and genius.” Therefore, it can be said that increasing British involvement did not develop ‘mainly’ because of the cooperation of India’s peoples. The reality is, nothing could have stood in Britain’s path.
