EIC Influence Grows

The British influence in India grew slowly. At first the EIC had just a few bases on the Indian
coast, but by 1664 they had established their headquarters in Bombay. In 1690 a trading post was
established in Calcutta. The EIC purchased spices, silks and cotton from the Indians and trade
was so profitable that the company soon had its own huge private army to protect the trading
posts.

By the early eighteenth century, the EIC had three main bases, Bombay, Calcutta and Madras
(Fig. 2.7). The company began to refer to these as ‘presidencies’ and they were later to become
the major provinces of British India.

At first the arrival of the British merchants brought benefits not only to the British but also to the
Mughal Empire. Indian merchants were able to sell their goods and became wealthy from the
large amounts of silver being sent out from Britain to pay for them. At this time the British
imported Indian goods but did not export much into India. However, the British began to develop
plans for growth which would lead to direct competition with the Emperor. By the end of the
seventeenth century the EIC was talking about ‘English dominion for all time to come’.

The EIC even had the audacity to go to war with Aurangzeb in 1686. He defeated the company’s
forces and pardoned them only after they had apologised for the ‘ill crimes they may have done’.
The company was also forced to pay a heavy fine.

But the EIC was more successful in fighting against other European nations who sought to share
in the highly profitable Indian trade. During the seventeenth century both the Portuguese and the
Dutch were defeated, but the main rivalry came from the French. They had set up their trading
company in 1664 and soon came into conflict with the EIC. The military skills of the British
general Robert Clive enabled the EIC to defeat the French and take advantage of India’s
unsettled conditions to increase British influence and control. It slowly began to expand its
forces to make local Indian princes accept its authority and was thus able to set up its own
government in parts of India.

After winning the Battle of Plassey, Robert Clive was made governor of Bengal, but his
opponents in Britain carried out an investigation into his behaviour in India. Although he was not
found guilty of the charge of ‘plundering India’, the disgrace, coupled with his addiction to
opium, caused him to take his own life in 1773.

British Expansion from the 1750s to 1850s

The Battle of Plassey

In 1756 the French encouraged the Nawab of Bengal, Siraj-ud-Daulah to attack the EIC base at
Calcutta. He captured the city, but was unable to keep control of it. In 1757 Clive arrived with a
force of EIC soldiers and defeated Siraj-ud-Daulah’s troops in the Battle of Plassey. The
Nawab's body was found in a river after the battle.
Clive's victory had been made easy by the treachery of Siraj-ud-Daulah's general, Mir Jafar. The
EIC rewarded him by making him Nawab of Bengal. This showed how British control was
growing. Thus one of India’s richest provinces fell under British control. Mir Jafar was forced to
give the company gifts of land and money which helped make some of the EIC officials very
rich.

In 1764 Mir Jafar’s son, Mir Qasim joined forces with the Nawab of Oudh and the Mughal
Emperor, Shah Alam II, to drive the EIC out of Bengal. They were unsuccessful and after their
defeat in the Battle of Buxar in 1764 British influence actually increased. The EIC now took
control of the revenue collection in Bengal, Bihar and Orissa and also extended its influence into
Oudh.

Bengal Exploited
The East India Company had been established to gain as much profit as possible, but its greed
after Buxar embarrassed the British government. The company made huge profits from its
monopoly of the trade in Bengal and company merchants became accustomed to receiving
personal ‘gifts’ which increased their wealth. As the EIC made huge profits, the local people
were exploited and suffered. In a serious famine which hit Bengal, Robert Clive, who had been
responsible for the military victory which brought EIC control of Bengal admitted:

“Such a scene of anarchy, confusion, bribery and corruption was never seen or heard of in any
country but Bengal.”

A British member of Parliament (M.P) was so angered by what was going on that he made a
speech in the British House of Commons claiming that:

“No civilised government ever existed on the face of this earth which was more corrupt or more
greedy than the government of the East India Company from 1765 to 1784.”

The British Government Intervenes

The British government was forced to act to stop this misgovernment. In 1773 it passed an Act of
Parliament which required the EIC to provide good government to stop this anarchy. Then in
1784 the British government passed the India Act (sometimes called ‘The Pitts India Act’) and
took direct control of the Indian possessions. It appointed a Governor-General, who would have
control of the three presidencies. There would also be provincial governors and a Commander-
in-Chief of the armed forces. The EIC continued to trade, but lost most of its administrative
powers.
To further improve efficiency, a police force and legal system were set up on British lines. A
professional civil service was also introduced, but local people were not given jobs in it. Only the
British were considered suitable to help run ‘British India’.

After setting up their new administration system in India, the British government continued to
expand British control.

 In 1782 the first Governor-General of India, Warren Hastings, signed a treaty ending the
First Maratha War between the British and the Marathas. This gave the British the
opportunity to extend their influence elsewhere.
 In 1799 Governor-General Wellesley invaded Mysore and killed Tipu, the Sultan of
Mysore. The British then took control of his lands.
 In the same year the Nawabs of Oudh were defeated and forced to grant large areas of
their territory to the British.
 In 1803 the British entered Delhi and forced the Mughal Emperor, Shah Alam, to accept
that he was ruling under ‘British protection’.
 In 1818 the Marathas were defeated by British forces and finally forced to accept British
control.

Titu Mir
Titu Mir (real name Syed Mir Nisar) was a great Bengali freedom fighter who led the people
against the oppression of the zamindars and the British colonial system. In 1822 Titu Mir went
on a pilgrimage to Mecca and when he returned to Bengal in 1827 he was determined to free
Bengal from un-Islamic practices and British rule.

He proclaimed himself king and raised an army of 15,000 followers. He built a bamboo fort at
Narkelbaria in October 1831 and defeated British forces sent to destroy it. As a result the British
sent an army including cavalry and cannon. Titu Mir's forces could not withstand the power of
the British modern weapons. Titu Mir was killed with many of his following after five days of
fierce fighting. In his report, the British commander praised the amazing bravery of Titu and his
men.

The Annexation of Sindh - How did the British take over the area of modern day
Afghanistan?

By the early nineteenth century the British were becoming increasingly concerned about the
Russian expansion. The British wanted to make sure that Afghanistan did not fall into Russian
hands. The British agreed with the Sikh ruler of the Punjab, Ranjit Singh, that Afghanistan
should remain independent. They hoped that Ranjit Singh would help them install a pro-British
ruler in Kabul. He did not support them, so the British went ahead on their own. However, a
rebellion in Afghanistan in 1841 led to all British troops in the country being killed.
The British felt that their pride had been hurt by this loss in Afghanistan and decided to turn on
Sindh. This territory was ruled by a collection of Amirs who had signed a treaty of friendship
with Britain in 1809. However, the British wanted to regain their prestige and also to make sure
that Sindh could not be a target for Sikh expansion. Ranjit Singh had been following a policy of
extending his kingdom and this had worried the British, so they decided to annex Sindh. All they
needed was an excuse. The British general, Sir Charles Napier provoked the Amirs of Sindh so
much that they attacked the British Residency in 1843. He now had his excuse for war. He later
admitted that:

"We have no right to besiege Sindh, yet we shall do so, and a very advantageous, useful human
piece of rascality it will be."

The Amirs were defeated and Sindh was annexed by the British.

Annexation of the Punjab and the North West Frontier

Shortly afterwards the Punjab also fell into British hands. Ranjit Singh had signed a treaty of
'perpetual friendship' in 1809 but, after his death in 1839, rival chiefs argued amongst themselves
over who should be the king. The Sikhs were worried that the British would invade the Punjab
and so launched an attack on the British. The British defeated the Sikhs at the Battle of Aliwal in
January 1846 and forced them to sign the Treaty of Lahore. The Sikhs had to cede land to the
British and pay a huge indemnity. The Raja of Jammu, Gulab Singh, who had helped the British,
was allowed to purchase Kashmir (which the British had taken from the Sikhs) and was granted
the title Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir.

In the Second Sikh War (1848–9) the Sikhs once more suffered defeat and the Sikh Empire came
to an end. The Punjab and what later became known as the North West Frontier became part of
the British Empire on 30 March 1849.

The Natural and Scientific Border

The acquisition of the NW Frontier by the British was nearer to what Lord Curzon later called
the ‘scientific and natural frontier of British India’. This meant establishing a border which was
based on natural geography, but also played a part in defending the territory from outside forces.

The British were determined that such a border would also help in their relations with the 'Tribal
Territory' to the north of the new territory. Lord Lytton (who became Viceroy of India in 1876)
put forward the idea of establishing a boundary to separate India from the tribesmen. He wanted
to safeguard northern India from the non-stop tribal warfare and raiding. Eventually, Sir
Mortimer Durand, in 1893, concluded an agreement with Amir Abdur Rahman Khan of
Afghanistan fixing the border. This agreement established what became known as 'The Durand
Line', a boundary drawn on 'scientific lines' reflecting British defence needs. A clause in the
treaty stated that:

"The Government of India will at no time exercise interference in the territories lying beyond
this line on the side of Afghanistan, and His Highness the Amir will at no time exercise
interference in the territories lying beyond this line on the side of India."

The Doctrine of Lapse

Although much of ‘British India’ had been gained in battle, the British did not formally add all
conquered lands to their Empire. In some places, such as Hyderabad Deccan, and Oudh, the local
Nawabs had been forced to sign treaties with the East India Company. These treaties allowed the
rulers to stay on the throne and to rule their subjects, but gave Britain control of external affairs.

So Indian rulers could not follow a foreign policy with which the British disagreed. British
influence was further extended by settling a British resident in the territory to ‘advise’ the ruler.

In 1852 Governor-General Dalhousie extended British control even further by applying the
Doctrine of Lapse. When a ruler died without a natural heir the British would annex his lands. So
Satara, Nagpur and Jhansi soon fell into British hands. Not surprisingly, this was an unpopular
policy and caused much resentment, especially when it was used just as an excuse to take land.
For example, in 1856 the Nawab of Oudh died, and although he had several legal heirs,
Dalhousie declared that the Nawab had governed his people badly and took Oudh under British
control. More than anything, this act showed how Britain was now dominant in India.

Why were the British able to conquer India?

1. The Weakness of India

The Mughal Empire was already in decline when the British began to expand their influence in
India. At that time there was no strong uniting force in India. It was a collection of disunited
territories with a variety of different rulers with different religions and cultures. They fought with
each other and they often saw the British as possible allies in their arguments with their
neighbours, rather than potential enemies. It was also true that many rulers were wealthy feudal
lords living on their past history and allowing their states to decline through neglect rather than
aiming to reform and reinvigorate them.
2. The Strength of the British

The Industrial Revolution in Britain resulted in it being technologically much more advanced
than India. It had superior weapons, means of communication and the confidence that went with
these technological advantages. Quite simply, the British considered themselves superior to the
Indians. They did not doubt that it was their right, even their duty, to spread their ‘superior’
culture across the globe. They saw Indian society in stagnation and decline. There were great
opportunities for profitable trade and for imposing efficient British administrative systems on
this sprawling giant of a country. A major reason for the British success in India was that they
always believed that they would succeed. Their political belief, was not just that they were right.
But that progress was a belief that was to be not only supported, but that they were destined to
rule large parts of the world.

British Rule
Although the British had been to blame for much of the warfare that occurred in India in the late
eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, they were determined to try to do something about the
impact of those wars.

 Law and order had broken down in many places and there was frequent famine in some
areas. Warfare had damaged many of the great monuments of the past and had also
disrupted trade and agriculture.
 Some areas of India, such as Bengal, had great wealth, but little of it was shared with the
ordinary Indian people. Instead it went into the pockets of the Indian nobility, or
increasingly, the British rulers.

British Exploitation of India

The early Governor-Generals tried to do something to improve the situation.

In 1833 the British government tried to give Indians a more important part in running their own
country. The Charter Act of 1833 said that Indians could be part of the civil service
administering India. But in practice there was little change. The Indian Civil Service employed
about 1000 administrators. They were chosen by open public examination, but those exams were
taken in England, in English. So in reality India was governed by an able, but entirely British
group of officials.

The salaries paid to the officials became part of what Indian historians have called the ‘Drain of
Wealth’. Revenue was collected from the local people, but unlike in the past, it was often used to
buy goods that were then shipped out of the country – to England. No wonder that one English
official at the time talked of how British rule was ‘like a sponge, drawing up all the good things
from the banks of the Ganges and squeezing them down on the banks of the Thames’.

British Exploitation of India

Romesh Dutt, who became president of Congress in 1899, has written that the purpose of
Britain’s economic policy in India:

‘was to make India subservient to the industries of Britain and to make the Indian people grow
raw produce only to supply materials for the manufacturing industry in Britain’.

Historians have calculated that in the 150 years after the Battle of Plassey, a sum of £1000
million was transferred from India to Britain. This helps explain the poverty that existed in India
in the last quarter of the nineteenth century and may explain why the famines of 1877, 1878,
1889 and 1892 had such a devastating effect. It has been calculated that around 15 million
people died in these famines.

By the mid-nineteenth century the British were firmly established in India. For the Indian
peasants and workers, life did not change much in the early period of British rule — especially as
the British were careful not to cause offence by trying to change the religious and cultural
practices of the Indian people (although they did ban suttee in 1829). For the upper classes,
however, there was a big change in their way of life. If they wanted to succeed they had to
become ‘Anglicized’. Two examples prove this point:

 In 1834 English replaced Persian as the official language of the administration.

 In 1835 it was decided that education should be in the English language.

These changes reflected the view of many British that they had ‘a great moral duty’ to govern
India well.

As the British began to introduce more reforms into India, opposition grew. Many Indians
viewed the British as conquering westerners trying to impose their culture on India. They didn’t
like Christian missionaries and they were very apprehensive about the new technological ideas
such as railways. At the beginning of the century an Englishman had claimed that ‘Natives of
India do not really like us’. He thought that given the opportunity they would ‘gladly rise
against us’. That opportunity arose in 1857.

Image 3: Why did the British call Tipu 'The Monster of Mysore'?

Why did the British call Tipu 'The Monster of Mysore'?

Tipu was Sultan of Mysore and he proved a formidable enemy for the British. The British called
Tipu ‘the monster of Mysore’. But to his followers he was known as ‘the Lion of Mysore’.

The British disliked the way that Tipu stood up to them and in particular they were worried that
he received help from France. There was a revolution in France and the British did not want
revolutionary ideas spreading into their colonies.

Tipu was determined to resist the British advance in India and believed that to defeat the British
he had to match their weapons. So it is said that he had 50 cannons, 100,000 cannon balls and
10 muskets – as well as rockets and handguns.

His army was so strong that he defeated the British in battle several times. The East India
Company wanted to improve its army to defeat him. To do this it needed funds and support. It
would be much easier to obtain these if the EIC could show that instead of being a brave Indian
leader protecting his homeland against invaders, Tipu was some cruel tyrant who had to be
overthrown.

So we can see in our investigation of what they said about him, that they were using propaganda
to project him as wicked and cruel as possible.
Section 3:

 Major General Iskander Mirza

 Selected as one of the 5 members of Ghulam Muhammad’s Cabinet (not a member of the
Assembly).
 Became Governor of East Pakistan in May 1954.
 Made acting Governor-General when Ghulam Muhammad retired due to ill health.

 Leadership Style

 Believed Pakistan needed a strong, decisive leader.

 Had a military background (served in the British army).
 Not afraid to take bold decisions.

 Key Decisions

 Dismissed Ali Bogra as Prime Minister, made him ambassador to the USA.
 Appointed Chaudry Muhammad Ali (Finance Minister) as new Prime Minister.
 Pressed hard for a Constitution to be drafted quickly.

The ‘One Unit’ policy

In November 1954, Bogra had proposed that the four provinces and 10 princely states within
Pakistan should be joined together to form West Pakistan. On 5 October 1955 Mirza passed an
order unifying all of West Pakistan in what became known as the ‘One Unit Scheme’.

Iskander Mirza claimed that the unification would bring about greater efficiency and enable
more rapid development. It would also be a significant step towards a united country, instead of
one where people might show loyalty to their local province and not to the state. However, there
were other reasons for the policy. In Pakistan the dominant politicians and administrators were
from the West wing, in particular, from the Punjab. These leading lights in the Pakistan
government feared that the East Pakistanis might soon gain influence at their expense. After all,
there were 10 million more people in East Pakistan than West Pakistan. By dividing Pakistan
into two wings (West Pakistan and East Pakistan) officially and ensuring equal representation in
the Assembly, the One Unit Scheme prevented East Pakistan gaining a majority in the Assembly.

The scheme was highly unpopular in East Pakistan and also was opposed in the individual
provinces of West Pakistan. Such was the opposition that President Mirza had to dismiss the
Chief Minister of Sindh and dissolve the state assemblies of Bahawalpur and Khairpur provinces.
West Pakistan formally came into being as a united province on 14 October 1955.
The ‘One Unit’ Policy – Key Points

 Proposal and Implementation:

o Proposed by Bogra in November 1954.
o Aimed to merge four provinces and 10 princely states into West Pakistan.
o Iskander Mirza passed the order on 5 October 1955.
o Officially came into being on 14 October 1955.
 Purpose and Justification:
o Claimed to:
 Improve administrative efficiency.
 Enable faster development.
 Promote national unity over provincial loyalty.
 Political Motivations:
o Power was concentrated in West Pakistan, especially Punjab.
o Fear among West Pakistani leaders that East Pakistanis (with 10 million more
people) might gain dominance.
o The policy ensured equal representation in the National Assembly for both
wings (East and West), preventing East Pakistan from gaining a majority.
 Reactions and Opposition:
o Highly unpopular in East Pakistan.
o Also opposed by provinces within West Pakistan.
o Due to opposition:
 President Mirza dismissed the Chief Minister of Sindh.
 Dissolved the state assemblies of Bahawalpur and Khairpur

Ayub Khan:

The Decade of Development

Ayub Khan is perhaps best remembered for a series of economic and social reforms which
brought praise from politicians and economists around the world. In 1968 he celebrated this
work by calling the period ‘A Decade of Development’.

Agricultural Reforms:
Ayub Khan's advisors wanted to bring reforms in the field of agriculture and make it more
productive. They said that many small, subsistence holdings could never be efficient. A law was
passed saying that no farm could be smaller than 12.5 acres or larger than 500 acres (irrigated) or
1000 acres (unirrigated).
This meant that many smaller farmers found their land was redistributed. However, the resulting
larger farms did produce a steady rise in food output. Big landowners were forced to find tenants
for parts of their land and this, too, raised productivity as the tenants and smaller farms were
often more efficient than the larger, poorly run farms.

Three major dams were built to help irrigation. Farmers were also loaned money to build wells to
reduce the need for canal irrigation. These reforms revitalised agriculture and crop yields were at
an all-time record. Ayub said that they had brought about a Green Revolution. However, much of
the increased productivity was due to mechanisation, which could generally only be afforded by
big landowners.

Fig. 12.9: Ayub Khan visiting a model farm in East Pakistan

Q. What does Fig. 12.9 tell us about Ayub Khan?

Industrial Reforms:

Ayub Khan's advisors pressed for more industrial development. This was carried out with the
help of loans from more industrialised western countries, particularly the USA, Germany and the
UK. In 1962 an oil refinery was established in Karachi and a Mineral Development Corporation
set up for the exploration of mineral deposits.

In 1964 an economic union was formed with Iran and Turkey, the Regional Cooperation for
Development (RCD), in which the three countries agreed to develop ties in trade, commerce and
industry. An Export Bonus Scheme was set up offering incentives to industrialists who increased
exports.

As a result, economic growth rose sharply. The average annual growth rate in the 1960s was 7%,
three times that of India. Production rose rapidly and the economy improved, but wealth
benefited few. In 1968, it was revealed that just 22 families controlled 66% of Pakistan’s
industrial assets and 80% of banking and insurance companies. Most were in West Pakistan.
Meanwhile, Pakistan was becoming increasingly dependent on foreign aid.

Social and Educational Reforms:

 New curricula and textbooks introduced.

 Extensive literacy programme.
  New schools and colleges built.
 Shelterless people resettled (75,000 refugees near Karachi).
 Laws passed requiring factory owners to house workers.
 Family Planning Programme launched (not very successful).
 Medical facilities and training schools improved.

A New Capital:

 Karachi replaced as capital.

 In 1959 site for Islamabad chosen.
 Construction began in 1961, first building opened in 1966.
 Officially became capital in 1967.
 Fully developed by mid-1970s.
 Secretariat Blocks became policy hub.
 City divided into zones (diplomatic, commercial, education, industrial, residential).

Fig. 12.11: Islamabad - the new capital (1967)

Political Unrest:

 1965: War with India over Kashmir → indecisive.

 Ayub signed peace treaty at Tashkent → Kashmir issue unresolved.
 Foreign Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto sacked, became opposition leader.
 By 1968: Discontent grew → accusations of vote rigging, rising food prices, student
protests.
 Oct 1968: Protests spread across West Pakistan.
 Failed assassination attempt on Ayub in Peshawar.
 Protests spread to East Pakistan too.

Fall of Ayub Khan:

 1969: Democratic Action Committee formed demanding reforms.

 Feb 1969: Ayub lifted emergency powers, released political prisoners.
 Opposition too strong; Basic Democracies collapsed.
 March 1969: Ayub resigned, handed power to the army → Martial Law.

General Yahya Khan (1969–71):

  Mar 1969: Yahya Khan became President.
 Apr 1969: 1962 Constitution suspended.
 1970: General elections held.

Announced:

1. Basic Democracy failed.

2. Properly elected government to be introduced.
3. ‘One Unit’ system ended, provinces restored.

 Promised democracy based on “one man, one vote”.

 Elections scheduled for Oct 1970 → postponed due to floods in East Pakistan.
 Held on 7 Dec 1970 → first ever on “one man, one vote” principle.
 Results caused a constitutional crisis → eventually split Pakistan into two separate
countries.