Unit – 1 Establishment of British Rule and Muslims

1. The East India Company and the various sections of Muslims.

2. The Muslim Revivalist Reaction- Wahabi and Faraizi.

3. Revolt of 1857 and Muslim Involvement.

4. British Treatment to Muslims.

********************************************************************

1. The East India Company and the various sections of Muslims.

Introduction: Upon taking the reins of power in the South Asian Sub-continent, the East India
Company officials, being aware of how sensitive Indians were of their socio-cultural traditions,
adopted a policy of “non-interference” and kept aloof from all matters related to the socio-cultural
and religious affairs of the local inhabitants. Instead, they busied themselves with the economic
exploitation of the country, the objective for which they had come to the region.

Nevertheless, following a vociferous clamour and pressure from the Christian missionaries who
regarded the Indian people as “primitive” and “benighted”, and who felt duty bound to “civilize”
them, the British Government in London forced the East India Company in 1813 to forsake its,
hitherto privileged, “no-interference policy” and give the evangelical movement unrestricted access
to the country as an essential precondition for the renewal of the charter.

Thus, upon setting foot in the Sub-continent, the missionaries, and even some British reform-
minded officials, embarked on the process of reforming, as well as westernizing, the Indian society.
Although some of the reforms being introduced were, when looked at objectively, positive, they
were always despised by the native Indians. Indeed, this brought about a widespread malaise among
the natives who interpreted the Company’s actions as part of a scheme to forcefully convert them to
Christianity. Thus, the task of this paper is to set out this socio-cultural malaise.

The Fall of Muslim Hegemony and the Coming of The British With the death of Aurangzeb
Alagmir (meaning World Conqueror) in 1707, the process of the disintegration of the Mughal
Empire was set in motion. This was an inevitable outcome resulting from Aurangzeb’s policies. In
fact, being a fanatic Sunni Muslim, known for his abhorrence and intolerance of other religions, he
ruled with an iron-fist policy and proceeded with anti-non-Muslim policies that alienated most of
his subjects, who were overwhelmingly of Hindu faith. In this respect, P. Spear stated that
Aurangzeb’s fanaticism led him to the extent of removing the Muslim confession of faith from all
coins for fear of being defiled by nonbelievers. Also, courtiers were forbidden to salute in the
Hindu fashion, and Hindu idols, temples and shrines were often destroyed. Besides, Aurangzeb is
regarded by many historians as being a war-like emperor. It was under his rule that the Mughal
Empire reached its widest extent. This was carried out by on-going and off-going wars, which
culminated in the exhaustion of the imperial treasury.

It is historically admitted that the post-Aurangzeb era proved to be the beginning of the end for the
Muslim hegemony over the Indian Subcontinent. Actually, the year 1707, when Aurangzeb passed
away, the Mughal Empire plunged into a state of chaos. Besides the conflict among his 17 sons and
daughters about the inheritance of the Empire, others, mainly those who had been mistreated by the
late Emperor (i.e. Aurangzeb), hence bore a grudge against the Mughal Court, found that time was
1
ripe to fulfil their plans. In fact, within the far-flung Empire, local chiefs and kings, mostly Hindus,
began carving out their little kingdoms without even caring about Delhi’s reaction.

It was in such circumstances that the British, hitherto a group of merchants conducting trade, got
involved politically in the Indian Subcontinent. In fact, it is noteworthy to mention that the English
East India Company had so far been carrying out trade under the protection of the Mughal Court.
The state of anarchy and lawlessness that prevailed in the region on the heels of Aurangzeb’s death
cast the British in an atmosphere of vulnerability and insecurity and made them rethink their
position there. This status quo was the driving force behind the change of mission that the East
India Company was going to undergo in the eighteenth century, namely from a trading one to a
ruling one.

In a little more than a half century, the British, by means of stratagems and complicity with local
princes, managed to gradually fill the gap left by the Muslim rulers by imposing their hegemony
over the Indian Subcontinent.

The Impact of British Rule on Muslims The coming of the British and their civilization that was
at that time prevalent in the Western World had different repercussions among the various
communities that made up the Indian Subcontinent, notably, Hindus and Muslims. In fact,
following the Battle of Plassey (1757), which marked the beginning of the process of the British
conquest of the Subcontinent, the imposition of British rule took place piecemeal. The first to come
under it were the coastal areas, where three major port cities were set up, namely Bombay, Madras
and Calcutta.

The British impact was initially felt in such coastal areas, and it happened that the people inhabiting
those areas were mostly Hindus. The latter proved to be very receptive to foreign cultures. In fact,
for Hindus, it did not matter whoever ruled them, and the advent of the British did not make any
difference. They had already been used to being ruled by foreigners. The coming of the British was
only “one imperialist sitting in the seat of another.” Moreover, the Hindus took advantage of the
education and liberal ideas brought by the British. The Hindus responded to the British presence on
their soil with an eagerness to learn from them whatever would contribute to their advancement.

This attitude on the part of the Hindus towards the British and their civilization brought them many
advantages. The Hindus were, indeed, the main, if not the only, beneficiaries of British rule. They
availed themselves of the many opportunities that the British offered in all spheres of life. By
embracing western education and culture, they became trusted subjects in the eyes of the new
rulers, and by learning the English language, they were offered services in the Government.

Furthermore, it was thanks to Western education brought by the British that a group of Hindu
intellectual class was born. The latter became imbibed with the main principles of liberalism and
democratic ideas that were then prevalent in Western Europe and North America. They read about
modernism and freethinking in Western Europe and learnt about Nationalism. That helped them
develop political consciousness among their community by organizing revivalist and reform
movements. As a matter of fact, the nineteenth century witnessed a significant wave of socio-
religious reform movements that spread among the Hindus. Probably the best example illustrating
this is the emergence, as early as 1828, of Brahmo Samaj under the leadership of Rajaram Mohan
Roy.

2
On the other hand, the advent of the British on the Indian Subcontinent ushered in a new era, or
rather a dark era, for Muslims. Whereas for Hindus it meant only a change of masters, for Muslims
it meant the loss of power, position, wealth and dignity. Indeed, with the consolidation of British
hegemony over the Indian Subcontinent, many profound transformations were effected, which
disrupted the old order established by the former rulers, the Mughals, centuries back. Indians, and
particularly Muslims, were to suffer the most, politically, economically, as well as psychologically.

Muslims were, indeed, reduced to poverty and destitution as a result of British rule. As the East
India Company took control over the Subcontinent, it approached Hindus for co-operation, and the
latter proved to be, from the very start, staunch supporters and reliable partners of the new rulers.
By opting for Hindu partners and collaborators, the British were aiming to oppress Muslims as well
as create an unbridgeable gap between both communities, namely Hindus and Muslims.

For instance, to help with revenue-collection, the Company passed the Permanent Land Settlement
Act (1793), whereby it created a new class of Hindu collaborators, called Zamindars (also called as
‘Gumasta’) The latter, backed up and encouraged by the British, overcharged Muslim peasants,
even during hard times, such as famines. The Permanent Settlement Act “elevated the Hindu
collectors to the position of landholders, gave them a propriety right in the soil and allowed them to
accumulate wealth.” Meanwhile it “practically reduced the Muslim peasantry to serfdom”.

This degenerative process of the Muslim community in the Subcontinent was not only confined to
the agricultural field. Even in the administrative government positions Muslims were being
gradually replaced by Hindus. This process of Muslims being replaced by Hindus was set off when
the East India Company replaced Persian or Urdu with the English language and the latter became
the official language of the bureaucracy. As a matter of fact, it was in 1835, namely during Lord
Bentinck’s general-governorship, that English was made the official language of governmental and
legal business in the Indian Subcontinent. Furthermore, even in law courts, the position of Muslim
officials was steadily undermined as the British imposed their own procedures in the courts to
supersede the ones already established by the Mughals.

Hence, the fact of refusing to learn the language of the new conquerors, as well as their education,
served as an impediment for Muslims to get, or to continue to be in, the administrative posts under
British rule, knowing that the English education was the only qualification that opened the door for
government positions.

Muslims’ rejection of Western education and culture and their attitude towards their successors in
the seat of power had indeed many reasons. One of these reasons was imperial pride. In fact,
whereas Hindus were, by nature, too willing to submit to the rulers, Muslims were too proud of
their past glory to submit to the British. The takeover of the Indian Subcontinent by the East India
Company proved to be a bitter pill for Muslims to swallow. They had been dethroned and could not
reconcile themselves with the current status quo. When Muslim hegemony was gone and real
power lay with the British, the Muslims would not, could not, forget that they had once ruled over
the land. Their reaction was bitter and truculent. As a result, they developed a hostile attitude
towards the British whom they accused of expropriating their prestige. This made the Muslim
community shy away from everything associated with the British, including their culture, language,
and education. Furthermore, this state of affairs of the Muslims led them to insularity, that is, only
interested in their own culture, ideas and so on. Naturally, to avoid coming under the influence of
the new culture, they clung tenaciously to the fundamental teachings of Islam and most of them
3
prevented their children from attending British-patronized educational institutions throughout the
different Indian provinces.

It is noteworthy to mention the fact that the type of education that the British introduced in the
Subcontinent also played a significant role in incensing the Muslim community. In fact, in
accordance with Lord William Bentinck’s policy of religious neutrality, this new system of
education did not make any concessions to religious instruction and Islamic cultural heritage.

In brief, with the consolidation of British rule in India, the Muslim community was badly affected,
as well as faced serious setbacks in all spheres of life. They, Muslims, plunged into a sense of
humiliation and grief at the loss of their power, and as a result, they developed bitter feelings
towards the British. This bitterness was going to lead, by the mid-nineteenth century, to a major
Revolt that shook the Company’s rule to its very foundations.

2. The Muslim Revivalist Reaction- Wahabi and Faraizi

The earliest signs of the Muslim awakening emerged at the beginning of the 19th century, led by
Shariat Ullah of Bengal. This was happening as a result of the influence of western ideologies,
Christian missionaries, and modern education. So they committed themselves to improving Islam
and fostering Islamic studies.

Faraizi Movement:
Haji Shariatullah started the Faraizi Movement, a religious reform movement, in the nineteenth
century. The word “Faraizi” derives from the Arabic word “farz,” which refers to obligations
imposed by Allah. Therefore, the Faraizi are those who seek to enforce compulsory religious
duties. Haji Shariat Ullah, the movement’s leader, however, used the phrase in a wider sense to
refer to all religious duties mandated by both the Quran and the Prophet’s Sunnah. Haji Shariat
Ullah passed away in 1837, leaving his capable and politically astute son Muhammad Mushin
also known as Dudu Miyan (1819-60) in charge of leading the uprising.
Role of the Faraizi Movement in Muslim Reform Movements:
 The Faraizi movement called for social justice and expressed worry over the British influence
on Muslims.
 It aimed to purify Islam by eradicating all non-Islamic customs and beliefs and designating
the Koran as their only source of spiritual guidance.
 According to Haji Shariat Ullah, the Muslims’ ability to practice their religion was harmed by
British control in Bengal.
 He declared that numerous transgressions were polluting Islam and offered remedial
suggestions.
 He criticized the corruptions and superstitions in Islam and strongly condemns the Muslim
caste system.
 The significance of this movement resided in its social foundations, as the rural Muslims of
east Bengal banded together under this religious group and rose up in revolt against
landowners, indigo planters, and the Britishers.
 After the death of Shariat Ullah in 1837, Dudu Miyan turned this movement from a so cio-
religious to a socio-economic-political movement.
 Dudu Miyan organized the rural population around an egalitarian ideology.
 He said that because Allah owned the property, the zamindar had no right to collect taxes.

4
 He instructed his people to avoid paying taxes to the zamindar, cultivating indigo for the
planters, and aiding the British.
 A few campaigns were also started to promote modern education and end social vices such as
polygamy and purdah.
 This movement sparked a new awareness among the peasants and paved the way for the
Muslim reform movement.
Wahabi Movement:
The Wahabi Movement was started in the first decade of the 19th century by Sayyid Ahmad of
Rai Bareilly. The Wahabi reform movement’s foundation was strengthened by the teachings of
Abdul Wahhab of Arabia (1703-87) and Delhi saint Shah Waliullah. The early Wahabis placed a
strong emphasis on two major reformation facets. The first was to unite Islamic ideas and the
second to support the conscience of the individual in upholding religious ethos.

Role of the Wahabi Movement in Muslim Reform Movements:

 The Wahabi movement was a revivalist movement that sought to purify Islam by eradicating
all un-Islamic practices that had permeated Muslim culture through the centuries.
 The Wahhabi movement opposed all Islamic schools of thought that it believed had
erroneously interpreted the Quran.
 Sayyid Ahmad was the first Indian Muslim leader of the 18th century to unite Muslims
around the movement’s dual ideals: the need for harmony among the four schools of Muslim
jurisprudence that had split Indian Muslims; and the need for the spread of Islam across the
world
 The Wahabi movement’s political outlook gave rise to the desire for a homeland for
Muslims.
 Wahabis did not limit themselves to just religious reforms. They wanted to usurp British rule
with the rule of sincere believers.
 Wahabi ideology had a significant impact on Muslim uprisings in India and impacted the
uprising of 1857.
 Muslims in India developed an anti-British feeling as a result of the Wahabi movement. The
leader of the revolt in Delhi, General Bakht Khan, was a Wahabi
 Dar-Ul-Islam, or the habitation of Islam, was the goal of the Wahabi movement and Muslim
isolationism was left as a legacy.
 This movement left the Indian Muslims with a history of isolationist and separatist impulses.
Conclusion:
In the nineteenth century, Indo-Islamic society saw a fiery push for socio-religious changes with
significant political implications. Following the uprising in 1857, the British were forced to
conduct major military operations against the supporters of these movements, as they turned into
an armed conflict. These movements had been totally suppressed by 1870. Regardless of the
overall result of these reform movements, a new society emerged in India.
3. Revolt of 1857 and Muslim Involvement
The Impact of The Indian Great Revolt on Muslim Community; Anti-British and anti-western
feelings that had long been building up amongst the Muslim community culminated in the Great
Revolt of 1857. This Revolt, which initially took the form of a mutiny amongst the Muslim as well
as Hindu Sepoys in the barracks and then later spread to the civilian population, is usually
considered as a restorative revolt. This is because the aim of the insurgents, Muslims as well as
Hindus, was to restore the pre-British conditions in the Subcontinent. Muslim rebels, for instance,
5
aimed at restoring their past imperial glory. Indeed, in an attempt to restore the Mughal Empire, the
Muslim Sepoys, shortly after the outbreak of the mutiny in the barracks, headed to Delhi, where
they pledged allegiance to Bahadur Shah II, the then titular Mughal Emperor.
The Great Revolt was doomed to failure, and many historians attribute this failure to, among other
things, the lack of unity among the insurgents. In spite of the fact that Muslims and Hindus joined
hands in their effort to throw the yoke of foreign rule, differences related to religion as well as the
diversity of interests served as a hamper for the cultivation of any feeling of national sentiment
among them.
Notwithstanding the fact that Muslims were not the only “culprits” responsible for the outbreak of
the Revolt, they were to bear the brunt of it. As the events of 1857 ended, the British chose to throw
the cover of responsibility on the Muslim aristocracy alone. As a matter of fact, the British had
always regarded the Muslims as their archenemy in India due to the fact that they (the British) had
unseated them from power, and the fact that the insurgents endeavoured to restore Bahadur Shah II
to power convinced the British enough to assume that the Muslim leaders were behind the planning
and leading of the uprising. Besides, the British officials in India admitted the fact that they had
wreaked havoc on the Muslim community, particularly the upper class, and so it was no surprise
that the latter would bear a grudge against the British.
The fact is the dispossessed Muslim potentates were not the only ones to have taken part in and led
the uprising. Actually, even Hindu maharajas (i.e. princes) and landlords, who, under British rule,
had suffered deprivation in terms of possessions, political rights and prestige, were the first to seize
the opportunity of the Revolt when it broke out. For the sake of illustration, it is worthwhile to set
out a couple of examples. One was Nana Sahib (1820-1859). The latter had been deprived of his
titles and rights that he inherited from his late father, Baji Rao II, the last Maratha Peshawa, as a
result of Dalhousie’s “Doctrine of Lapse.” As the Great Revolt broke out, Nana Sahib is said to
have joined the rebellious native regiments without any hesitation. Nana Sahib ended up as a
prominent leader in the course of the uprising and inflicted heavy losses, material as well as human,
on British troops.
Hindu active involvement in the Great Revolt can also be epitomized by the story of Lakshmi Bai,
the Rani, or Queen, of Jhansi. Based on Dalhousie’s Doctrine of Lapse, which stated that “a state
whose ruler died without a direct male heir was forfeit to the company,” Lakshmi Bai had her
adoptive son denied the right to replace her late husband, King, of Jhansi following his passing
away. As the events of 1857 unfolded, the Rani led her troops and fought like a noble warrior.
Briefly speaking, both Muslims and freedom-loving Hindus did participate in the Great Revolt, and
in spite of that, the British decided to revenge themselves on the Muslim community, as the latter
were regarded as the bona fide formentors and the most beneficiaries of the uprising.

4. British Treatment to Muslims

This anti-Muslim feeling was well reflected in the harshness of British reprisals towards the
Muslim community immediately after the Revolt was put down. Besides the expropriation of
Muslim landowners, some contemporaries bear witness too many instances of barbaric acts of
ruthless vengeance being inflicted indiscriminately by British soldiers, with the connivance of their
superior officers, on ordinary Muslims. Historians describe this British heavy-handedness on the
Muslim community, as “mass massacres, indiscriminate hangings, inhumane tortures and large
scale confiscation of properties were some of the means adopted by the British for the purpose”. To
6
add insult to injury, even Hindus, who had an active hand in the events of 1857, pointed an
accusing finger at the Muslim community and joined hands with their new masters, namely the
British, in their anti-Muslim campaign.
Anti-Muslim sentiment can also be inferred from the British policy towards the Muslim community
during the several decades that followed the Great Revolt. As a matter of fact, since the early days
when the East India Company imposed its hegemony over the Subcontinent, the British had looked
down on the Muslim community and saw Muslims as their bona fide adversaries. The events of
1857 were but an opportunity that the British seized to get rid of the last vestiges of the Mughal
Empire once and for all, as well as curb the Muslim influence in the Indian society. The first
objective was, indeed, successfully fulfilled. In fact, shortly after Delhi was retaken, the British
captured the ageing Mughal Emperor, Bahadur Shah II, with his three sons and tried them for
complicity in murder. Found guilty, the sons were executed, and the old Mughal was sent into exile
with his wives to Rangoon (Burma), where he died in 1862. Thus, with the departure of the last
Mughal Emperor, Delhi, the last foothold that remained of the Mughal Empire, came under British
suzerainty.
With regard to the second objective, Muslims were to face terrible discrimination in all spheres of
day-to-day life, and particularly in Government employment. This discriminatory policy was
mainly carried out upon the advice of some high officials in the Government of India. Charles
Raikes, for instance, who was a senior British official in India during the events of 1857, was of the
opinion that Muslims had been trusted too much and thenceforward, they should be watched. He
asked the Government of India to take drastic measures to prevent Muslims from “enjoying too
large a share of the Government patronage”. Indeed, Raikes’ and his colleagues’ recommendations
were well heeded by the Government of India. In fact, the number of Muslim appointments in
Government posts decreased sharply during the couple of decades that followed the Great Revolt,
and by the 1880’s, the British managed to reduce Muslims to the position of “hewers of woods and
drawers of water.” For instance, in the Bengal region, whereas on the eve of the Great Revolt the
Muslim community used to monopolize the higher positions in the judicial service, by 1886 they
could lay claim to only 9 posts out of a total of 284.
Muslims lost most of their positions in Government. There was scarcely any Government office in
which a Muhammadan can hope for any post above the rank of poster, messenger, filler of ink-pots
and menders of pens. It is worthwhile to mention the fact that it was the new “protégés” of the
British, namely the Hindus, who were to benefit the most from this anti-Muslim discrimination.
Even when meeting all the requirements for Government positions, Muslims were officially and
publicly kept away by official decrees.
This anti-Muslim and pro-Hindu attitude on the part of the British authorities in India can be
described as, All sorts of employment, great and small, are being gradually snatched away from the
Mohammedans, and bestowed on men of other races, particularly the Hindus. Time has now come
when it (the Government) publicly singles out the Mohammedans in its gazettes for exclusion from
official posts, even when qualified for Government employ; they are seriously kept out of it by
Government Notifications.
In a word, the post-Great Revolt period was probably the gloomiest period in the history of the
Muslim community in the Indian Subcontinent. In the British eyes, Muslims had concocted and
taken a prominent part in the events of 1857, whereas Hindus kept a low profile. As a result, the

7
former were to shoulder, alone, the blame. Swift and merciless reprisals were to be inflicted by the
British administration, which would result in a harsh reality to the Muslim community.
Their pitiable conditions can be read from the following passage addressed by the Muslim
community in Delhi to the Governor-General: We the Muslim inhabitants of Delhi have since
sustained the extreme losses of life, property and honour. At present we have absolutely nothing to
feed our children and ourselves. There is no ceiling under which we could seek shelter against
inclement weather, and no clothing to cover our bodies. Thousands of us not bearing the severities
of climate perished last year and if nothing is done to protect us many more will die this season.
On the other hand, the Government of India embarked on a discriminatory policy that disfavoured
Muslims in every walk of life. This wreaked havoc on Muslims who were reduced to a state of
degradation and destitution. By the last quarter of the nineteenth century, Sir William Hunter
(1840-1900), a contemporary member of the Indian Civil Service as well as an imperial historian,
depicted Muslims in his book The Indian Musalmans (1871) as “a community in decay,
economically backward and deprived of access to positions in government service by a rival Hindu
community”.

******************************************************************************