History Of Modern India Part 9

In the very beginning of British rule in Bengal, the policy of Clive and Warren Hastings of extracting the largest possible land revenue had led to such devastation that even Cornwallis complained that one-third of Bengal had been transformed into "a jungle inhabited only by wild beasts." Nor did improvement o^cur later, In both the Permanently, and the Temporarily Settled Zamindari ^reas, the lot of the peasants remained un-, enviable. They were left tc the mercies of the zamindars who raised rents to unbearable limits, compelled them to pay illegal dues and to perform forced labour or begat, and oppressed them in diverse other ways.

The condition oF the cultivators in the Ryotwari and Mahalwari arcus was no better. Here the Government took the place of the zamindais and levied excessive land revenue which was in the beginning fixed as high as one-third to one-half of the produce. Heavy a.s.sessment of land was one of the main causes of the growth of poverty and the deterioration of agriculture in the 19th century. Many contemporary writers and officials noted this fact. For instance, Bishop Heber wrote in 1826: Neither Native nor European agriculturist, I think, can thrive at ihe present rale of taxation. Half of the gross produce of the soil is demanded by Government.. . In Hindustan (Northern India) I found a general feeling among the King.s officers ...that the peasantry in the Company's Provinces are on the whole Worse off, poorer and more dispirited than the subjects of the Native Provinces; and here in Madras, where the soil is, generally speaking, poor, the difference is said to be still more marked. The fact is, no Native Prince demands the rent which we do.

Even though the land revenue demand went on increasing year after year-it increased from Rs. 15.3 crores in 1857-58 to Rs. 35 8 crores in 1936-37-the proportion of the total produce taken as land revenue tended to decline as the prices rose and production increased. No proportional increase in land revenue was made as ihe disastrous consequences of demanding extortionate revenue became obvious. But by now the population pressure on agriculture had increased to such an extent that the lesser rever ,e demand of later years weighed on the peasants as heavily as the higher revenue demand of the earlier years of the Company.s administration.

The evil of high revenue demand, was made worse by the fact that the peasant got little economic return for it. The Government spent very little on improving agriculture. It (fevoted almost its entire income to meeting the needs of British-Indian administ.ation, making the payments of direct and indirect tribute to England, and serving the'interests of British trade and industry. Even the maintenance of law and order tended to benefit the merchant and the money-londer rather than th'e peasant.

The harmful effects of an excessive land revenue dam'and wtfre further heightened by the rigid mannec of its collection. Land revenue had: to" be paid promptly on the fied dates even if the harveSt had b^n beloW normal or had failed completely, But in bad yeans thepeas&wt'* found it difficult to meet the revenue demand even if We had bwn b 6ft)'!do so in giood years.

Whenever the peasdnt fottodi to pay Jand1 rtVfctiUe/ tto (Go^WKtneW put up his land on sale to collect the arrears of revenue. But in most cases the peasant himself took this step and sold part of his land to meet in time the government demand. In either case he lost his land.

More often the inability to pay revenue drove the peasant to borrow money at high rates of interest from the money-lender. He preferred getting into debt by mortgaging his land to a money-lender or to a rich peasant neighbour to losing it outright. He was also forced to go to the money-lender whenever he found it impossible to make his two ends meet. But once in debt he found it difficult to get out of it. The money-lender charged high, rates of interest and through cunning and deceitful measures, such as false accounting, forged signatures, and making the debtor sign for larger ampunts than he had borrowed, got the peasant deeper and deeper into debt till he parted with his land.

The money-lender was greatly helped by the new legal system and the new revenue policy. In pre-British times, the money-lender was subordinated to the village community. He could nofbehave in a manner totally disliked by the rest of the village. For instance, he could not charge usurious rates of interest. In fact, the rates of interest were fixed by usage and. public opinion. Moreover he could not seize the land of the debtor; he could at most take possession of the. debtor.s personal effects like jewellery or parts of his standing crop. By introducing transferability of land the British revenue system enabled the money-lender or the rich peasant to take possession of land. Even the benefits of peace and security established by the British through their legal system and police were primarily reaped by the money-lender in whose hands the law placed enormous power; he also used the power of the purse to turn the expensive process of litigation m his favour and to make the police serve his purposes. Moreover, the literate and shrewd money-lender could easily take advantage of the ignorance and illiteracy of the peasant to twist the complicated processes of law to get favourable judicial decisions.

Gradually the cultivators in the Ryotwari and Mahalwari areas sank deeper and deeper into debt and more and more land pa.s.sed into the hands of money-lenders, merchants, rich peasants and other moneyed cla.s.ses. The process was lepeated in the zamindari areas where the tenants lost (heir tenancy rights and were ejected from the land or became subtenants of the money-lendei.

The process of (tausfe'r of land from cultivators was intensified during periods of scarcity and famines The Indian peasant hardly had any savings for critical times and whenever crops failed he fell back upon the money-lender not only to pay land itvenue but also to feed himself and his family.

By the end of the 19th century the money-lender had become a major curse of the countryside and an important cause 6f the growing poverty of the rural people. In 1911 the total rural debt was estimated at Rs.300 crores. By 1937 it amounted to Rs. 1,800 crores. The entire process became a vicious circle. The pressure of taxation and growing poverty pushed the cultivators into debt which in turn increased then poverty. In fact, the cultivators often failed to understand that the money-lender was an inevitable cog in the mechanism of imperialist exploitation and turned their anger against him as he appeared to be the visible cause of their impoverishment, For instance, during the Revolt of 1857, wherever the peasantry rose in revolt, quite often its first target of attack was the money-lender and his account books. Such peasant actions soon became a common occurrence.

The growing commercialisation of agriculture also helped the money- lender-c.u.m-merchant to exploit the cultivator. The poor peasant was forced to sell Iiis produce just after the harvest and at whatever price he could get as he had to meet in time the demands of the Government, the landlord, and the money-lender,. This placed him at the mercy of the grain merchant, who was in a position to dictate terms and who purchased his produce at much less than the market price. Thus a large share of the benefit of the growing trade m agricultural products was reaped by the merchant, who was very often also the village money-lender.

The loss of land and the over-crowding of land caused by de-industria- lisation and lack of modern industry compelled the landless peasants and ruined artisans and handicraftsmen to become either tenants of the money-lenders and zamindars by paying rack-rent or agricultural labourers at starvation wages. Thus the peasantry was crushed under the triple burden of the Government, the zamindar or landlord, and the money-lender. After these three had taken their share not much was left for the cultivator and his family to subsist on. It has been calculated that in 1950-51 land rent and money-lenders. interest amounted to Rs. 1400 crores or roughly equal to one-third of the total agricultural produce for the year. The result was that the impoverishment of the peasantry continued as also an increase in the incidence of famines. People died in millions whenever droughts or floods caused failure of crops and produced scarcity.

Ruin of Old Zamindars and Rise of New Landlordism The first few decades of British rule witnessed the ruin of most of the old zamindars in Bengal and Madras. This was particularly so with Warren Hastings. policy of auctioning the right? of revenue collection to the highest bidders, The Permanent Settlement of 1793 also had a similar elTcct in the beginning. The heaviness of land revenue-the Government claimed ten-elevenths of the rental-and the rigid law of collection, tinder which the zamindari estates were ruthlessly sold ill case of delay in payment of revenue, worked havoc for the first few years. Many of the great zamindars of Bengal were utterly ruined. By 1815 nearly half of the landed property of Bengal had been transferred from the old zamindars, who had resided in the villages and who had traditions of showing some consideration to their tenants, to merchants and other moneyed cla.s.ses, who usually lived in towns and who were quite ruthless in collecting to the last pie what Was due from the tenant irrespective of difficult circ.u.mstances, Being utterly unscrupulous and possessing little sympathy for the tenants, they began to subject the latter to rack-renting and ejectment.

The Permanent Settlement in North Madras and the Ryotwan Settlement in the rest of Madras were equally harsh on the local zamindars.

Bui the condition of the zamindars soon improved radically. In order to enable Ihe zamindars to pay the land revenue in time, the authorities increased their power over the tenants by extinguis.h.i.+ng the traditional rights of the tenants. The zamindars now set out to push up the rents to the utmost limit. Consequently, they rapidly grew in prosperity.

In the Ryotwan areas too the system of landlord-tenant relations spread gradually. As we have seen above, more and more land pa.s.sed into the hands of money-lenders, merchants, and rich peasants who usually got the land cultivated by tenants. One reason why the Indiain moneyed cla.s.ses were keen to buy land and become landlords was the absence of effective outlets for investment of their capital in industry. Another process through which this landlordism spread was that of subletting. Many owner-cultivators ahd occupancy tenants, having a permanent right to hold land, found it more convenient to lease out land to land- hungry tenants at exorbitant rent than to cultivate it themselves. In time, landlordism became the main feature of agrarian relations not only in the zamindari areas but also in the Ryotwari areas.

A remarkable feature of the spread of landlordism was the growth of subinfeudation of intermediaries. Since the cultivating' tenants were generally unprotected and the overcrowding of land led tenants to com- pete with one another to acquire land, the rent of land went on increasing. The zamindars and 'the new landlords found it convenient to sublet their right to collect rent to other eager persons op profitable terms. Bui as rents Increased, sijb leasers of Ian4 in their turt}. sublet their rights ii} land. Thijs by a cfyaih-pr.oeess a large number of refLt-receiving intermediaries between thp actual cultivator and the government sprang up. In s.ome o$ses in Bengal their tjAimbejr went as'High $s fifty ! This condition of the helpless cuttivatiVi'g tenaptS'wRo had ultimately to bear the unbearable burden of maintaining this horde of superior landlords was precarious bcy.oftd imagination, tyfany of thaj} were little better than slaves.

An extremely h^rpnful cop^u^ce of the rise and growth of zamindars and lanijlords was the political role they played during India.s struggle for independence Along with the princes of protected states they became the chief political supporters ol the foreign rulers and opposed the rising national movement. Realising that they owed their existence to British rule, they tried hard to maintain and perpetuate it.

Stagnation and Deterioration of Agriculture As a result of overcrowding of agriculture, excessive land revenue demand, growth oflandlordism, increasing indebtedness, and the growing impoverishment of the cultivators, Indian agriculture began to stagnate and even deteriorate resulting in extremely low yields per acre.

Overcrowding of agriculture and increase in subinfeudation led to subdivision and fragmentation of land into small holdings most of which could not maintain their cultivators. The extreme poverty of the overwhelming majority of peasants left them without any resources with which to improve agriculture by using better cattle and seeds, more manure and fertilizers, and improved techniques of production. Nor did the cultivator, rack-rented by both the Government and the landlord, have any incentive to do so. After all the land he cultivated was rarely Ins properly and the bulk of the benefit which agricultural improvements would bring was likely to be reaped by the horde of absentee landlords and money- lenders. Subdivision and fragmentation of land also made it difficult to effect improvements.

In England and other European countries the rich landlords often invested capital in land to increase its productivity with a view to share in the increased income. But in India the absentee landlords, both old and new, performed no useful function. They were mere rent-receivers who had often no roots in land and who took no personal interest in it beyond collecting rent; They found, it possible, and therefore preferred, to increase their income by further squeezing their tenants rather than by making productive investments m their lands.

The Government could have helped in improving and modernising agriculture. But the Government refused to recognise any such responsibility A characteristic of the financial system of British India was that, while the main burden of taxation fell on the shoulders of the peasant, the Government spent only a very small part of it on him. An example of this neglect of the pfcasant and agriculture was the step-motherly treatment meted, put to public works and agricultural improvement. While the Government of India had spent by 1905 over 360 crores of rupees on the .railways which were demanded by British business interests, it spent m the same period less than 50 crores of rupees on irrigation whioh would have benefited millions of Indian cultivators. Even so, irrigation was1 the only field in which the Government took some steps forward.

At a time when agriculture all ovei the world was being modernised and revolutionised, Indian agriculture was technologically stagnating, hardly any modern machinery was used. What was worse was that even ordinary implements were centuries old. For example, in $951, theie were only 930,000 iron ploughs m use while wooden ploughs numbered 31. 8 million. The use of inorganic fertilizers was virtually unknown, while a large part of animal manure, i e , cow-dung, night-soil, and cattle bones, was wasted In 1922-23, only 1.9 per cent of all cropped land was under improved seeds. By 1938-39, this percentage had gone-up to only 11% Furthermore, agricultural education was completely neglected. In 1939 there were only six agriculture colleges with 1,306 students. There was not a single agriculture college in Bengal, Bihar, Orissa, and Sind. Nor could peasants make improvements through self-study. There was hardly any spread of primary education or even literacy m the rural areas.

Development of Modern INDUSTRIES An important development in the second half of the 19th century was the establishment of largescale machine-based industries in India. The machine age in India started when cotton textile, jute and coal mining industries were started in the 1850.s. The first textile mill was started in Bombay by Cowasjee Nanabhoy in 1853, and the first j'ute mill in Rishra (Bengal) in 1855 These industries expanded slowly but continuously, In 1879 there were 56 cotton textile mills in India employing nearly 43,000 persons. In 1882 there were 20 jute mills, most of them in Bengal employing nearly 20,000 persons. By 1905, India had 206 cotton mills employing nearly 196,000 persons. In 1901 there were over 36 jute mills employing nearly 115,000 persons, The coal mining industry employed nearly one lakh persons m 1906. Other mechanical industries which developed during the second half of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th centuries were cotton gins and presses, rice, flour and timber mills, leather tanneries, woollen textiles, paper and sugar mills, iron and steel works, and such mineral industries as salt, mica and saltpetre. Cement, paper, matches, sugar and gla.s.s industries developed during the 1930.s. Bat all these industries had a very stunted growth.

Most of the modern Indian industries were owned or controlled by British capital. Foreign capitalists were attracted to Indian industry by the prospects of high profits. Labour was extremely cheap; raw materials were readily and cheaply available; and for many goods, India and its neighbours provided a ready market. For many Indian products, such as tea, jute, and manganese, there was a ready demand the world over. On the other hand, profitable investment opportunities at home were getting fewer. At the same time, the colonial government and officials were willing to provide all help and show all favours.

Foreign capital easily overwhelmed Indian capital in many of the industries Only in the cotton textile industry did the Indians have a large share from the beginning, and in the 1930.s, the sugai industry was developed by the Indians. Tndian capitalists had also to struggle from the beginning against the power of British managing agencies and British banks. To enter a field of entei prise, Indian businessmen had to bend before British managing agencies dominating that field. In many cases even Indian-owned companies were contioiled by foreign owued or controlled managing agencies. Indians also found it difficult to get credit from banks most of which were dominated by British financiers. Even when they could get loans they had to pay high mteiest rates while foreigners could borrow on much easier terms. Of course, gradually Indians began to develop their own banks and insurance companies. In 1914 foreign banks held over 70 per cent of all bank deposits m India; by 1937 iheir share had decreased to 57 per cent British enterprise in India also took advantage of its close connection with British suppliers of machinery and equipment, s.h.i.+pping, insurance companies, marketing agencies, government officials, and political leadeis to maintain its dominant position in Indian economic life. Moreover, the Government followed a conscious policy of favouring foreign capital as against Indian capital.

The railway policy of the Government also discnminated against Indian enterprise; Jailway freight rates encouiaged foreign imports at the cost of trade in domestic products. It was more difficult and costlier to distribute Indian goods than to distribute imported goods.

Another serious weakness of Indian industrial effort was the almost complete absence of heavy or capital goods industries, without which there can be no rapid and independent development of industries. India had no big plants to produce iron and steel or to manufacture maclunery A few petty repair workshops represented engineering industries and a few iron and bra.s.s foundaries represented metallurgical industries. The first steel in India was produced only in 1913. Thus India lacked such basic industries as steel, metallurgy, machine, chemical, and oil. India also lagged behind in the development of electric power.

Apart from machine-based industries, the 19th century also witnessed the growth of plantation industries such as indigo, tea, and coffee. They were almost exclusively European in owners.h.i.+p Indigo was used as a dye in textile manufacture. Indigo manufacture was introduced in India at the end of the 18th century and flourished in Bengal and Bihar. Indigo planters gained notoriety for their oppression over the peasants who were compelled by them to cultivate indigo. This oppression was vividly portrayed by the famous Bengali wnter Dinbandhu Mitra in his play Nenl Darpan in 1860. The invention of a synthetic dye gave a big blow to the indigo industry and it gradually declined. The tea industry developed in a.s.sam, Bengal, Southern India, and the hills of Himachal Pradesh after 1850. Being foreign-owned, it was helped by the Government with grants of rent-free land and other facilities. In time use of tea spread all over India; and it also became an important item of export. Coffee plantations developed during this period in South India.

The plantation and other foreign-owned industries were hardly of much advantage to the Indian people. Their salary profits went out of the country. A large part of their bill was spent on foreigners. They purchased most of their equipment abroad. Most of their technical staff was foreign. Most of their products were sold in foreign markets and the foreign exchange so earned was utilised by Britain. The only advantage that Indians got out of these industries was the creation of unskilled jobs. Most of the workers in these enterprises were, however, extremely low paid, and they worked under extremely harsh conditions for very long hours. Moreover, conditions of near slavery prevailed in the plantations.

On the whole, industrial progress in India was exceedingly slow and painful. It was mostly confined to cotton and jute industries and tea plantations in the 19th century, and to sugar and cement in the I930.s. As late as 1946, cotton and jute textiles accounted for 40 per cent of all Workers employed in faotories. In terms of production as well as employment, the modern industrial development of India was paltry compared wi^h the economic development of other countries or with India.s economic needs. It did not, in fact, compensate even for the displacement of the indigenous handicrafts; it had little effect on the problems of poverty and oyer-crowding of land. The paltriness of Indian industrialisation is brought out by the fact that out of a population of 357 millions in 1951 only about 2.3 millions were employed in modern industrial enterprises. Furthermore, the decay and decline of the urban and rural handicraft industries continued unabated after 1858. The Indian Planning Commission has calculated that the number of persons engaged in processing and manufacturing fell from 10.3 millions in 1901 to 8 8 millions in 1951 even though the population increased by nearly 40 per cent. The Government made no effort to protect, rehabilitate, reorganise, and modernise these old indigenous industries.

MotftOver, even the modern industries had to develop without government help and often in opposition to British poliey. British manufacturers looked upon Indian textile and other industries as their rivals and put pressure on the Government of India not to encourage but rather t<5 actively,="" discourage="" industrial="" development="" in="" india.="" thus="" british="" policy="" arti(icially="" restricted="" and="" slowed="" down="" the="" growth="" of="" indian="">

Furthermore, Indian industries, still in ft period '-of infancy, needed protection- They developed at a time when Britain, France, Germany, and the United States had already established powerful industries and could not therefore compete with them. In fact, all other countries, including Britain, had protected their infant industries by imposing heavy customs duties on the imports of foreign manufactures. But India was not a free country. Its policies were determined in Britain and in the interests of British industrialists who forced a policy of Free Trade upon their colony. For the same reason the Government of India refused to give any financial or other help to the newly founded Indian industries as was being done at the time by the governments of Europe and j.a.pan for their own infant industries. It would not even make adequate arrangements for technical education which remained extremely backward until 195P and further contributed to industrial backwardness. Tn 1939, there were only 7 engineering colleges with 2,217 students in the country. Many Indian projects, for example, those concerning the construction of s.h.i.+ps, locomotives, cars, and aeroplanes, could not get started because of the Government.s refusal to give any help.

Finally, in the 1920.s and I930's, under the pressure of the rising nationalist movement and the Indian capitalist cla.s.s the Government of India was forced to grant some tariff protection to Indian industries. But, once again, the Government discriminated against Indian-owned industries. The Indian-owned industries such as cement, iron and steel, and gla.s.s were denied protection or given inadequate protection. On the other hand, foreign dominated industries, such as the match industry, were given the protection they desired. Moreover, British imports were given special privileges under the system of imperial preferences' even though Indians protested vehemently.

Another feature of Indian industrial development was that it was extremely lop-sided regionally. Indian industries were concentrated only in a few regions and cities'of the country. Large parts of the country remained totally underdeveloped. This unequal regional economic development not only led to wide regional disparities in income but also affected the level of national integration. It made the task of creating a unified Indian nation more difficult.

An important social consequence of .even the limited industrial development of the country was the birth and growth of two new social cla.s.ses in Indian society-the industrial capitalist cla.s.s and the modem working cla.s.s. These two cla.s.ses were entirely new in Indian history because modern mines, industries, and means of transport were new. Even though these cla.s.ses formed a very Bmall part of the Indian population, they represented new technology, a new system of economic organisation, new social relations, new ideas, and a new outlook. They Were not weighed down by the burden of old traditions, customs, and styles of life. Most of all, they possessed an all-India outlook. Moreover, both of them were vitally interested in the industrial development of the country. Their economic and political importance and roles were therefore out of all proportion to their numbers.

POVERTY AND FAMINES.

A major characteristic of British rule in India, and the net result of British economic policies, was the prevalence of extreme poverty among its people. While historians disagree on the question whether India was getting poorer or not under British rule, there is no disagreement on the fact that throughout the period of British rule most Indians always lived on the verge of starvation. As time pa.s.sed, they found it more and more difficult to find employment or a living, British economic exploitation, the decay of indigenous industries, the failure of modern industries to replace them, high taxation, the drain of wealth to Britain, and a backward agrarian structure leading LO the stagnation of agriculture and the exploitation of the poor peasants by the zamindars, landlords, princes, money-lenders. merchants, and the state gradually reduced the Indian people to extreme poverty and prevented them from progressing. India.s colonial economy stagnated at a low economic level.

The poverty of the people found its culmination in a series of famines which ravaged all parts of India in the second half of the 19th century. The first of these famines occurred in Western U.P. in 1860-61 and cost over 2 lakh lives. In 1865-66 a famine engulfed Orissa, Bengal, Bihar, and Madras and took a toll of nearly 20 lakh lives, Orissa alone losing 10 lakh people. More than 14 lakh persons died in the famine of 1868-70 in Western UP,, Bombay, and the Punjab. Many states in Rajputana, anJother affected area, lost l/4th to 1/3rd of their population.

Perhaps the worst famine in Indian history till then occurred in 1876-78 in Madras, Mysore, Hyderabad, Maharashtra, Western U. P, and the Punjab. Maharashtra lost 8 lakh people, Madras nearly 35 lakhs, Mysore nearly 20 per cent of its population, and U. P. over 12 lakhs. Drought led to a country-wide famine in 1896*97 and then again in 1899- 1900. The famine of 1896-97 affected over 9.5 crore people of whom nearly 45 lakhs died. The famine of 1899-1900 followed quickly and caused widespread distress. In spite of official efforts to save lives through provision of famine relief, over 25 lakh people died. Apart from these major famines, many other local famines and scarcities occurred. William Digby, a British writer, has calculated that, in all, over 28,825,0 people died during famines from 1854 to 1901. Another famine in 1943 carried away nearly 3 million people in Bengal. These famines and the high tosses of life in them indicate the extent to which poverty and starvation had taken root in India.

Many English officials in India recognised the grim reality of India's poverty during the 19th century. For example, Charles Elliott, a member of the Governor-General.s Council, remarked: I do not hesitate to say that half the agricultural population do not fcaow from one year.s end to another what it is to have a full meal.

And William Hunter, the compiler of the Imperial Gazetteer, conceded that "forty million of the people of India habitually go through life on insufficient food." The situation became still worse in the 20th century. The quant.i.ty of food available to an Indian declined by as much as 29 per cent in the 30 years between 1911 and 1941.

There were many other indications of India.s economic backwardness and impoverishment. Colin Clark, a famous authority on national income, has calculated that during the period 1925-34, India and China had the lowest per capita incomes in the world. The income of an Englishman was 5 times that of an Indian. Similarly, average life expectancy of an Indian during the 1930.s was only 32 years in spite of the tremendous progress that modern medical sciences and sanitation had made. In most of the western European and north American countries, the average age was already over 60 years.

India.s economic backwardness and poverty were not due to the n.i.g.g.ardliness of nature. They were man-made. The natural resources of India were abundant and capable of yielding, if properly utilised, a high degree of prosperity to the people. But, as a result of foreign rule and exploitation, and of a backward agrarian and industrial economic structure, -in fact as the total outcome of its historical and social development- India presented the paradox of a poor people Jiving in a rich country.

EXERCISES.

1. How was India transformed into an economic colony under British rule 1

2. Examine critically the impact of British policies on the Indian peasant. How did it lead to the spread of landlordism?

3. Discuss the main features of the development of modem industries in India.

4. Write short notes on:

(a) The ruin of old zamindars; (b) Stagnation in agriculture; (t) Poverty and famines in modern India.

CHAPTER XU.

Growth of New India-the Nationalist HE second half of the 19th century witnessed the full flowering

Movement 1858-1905

of national political consciousness and the growth of an organised national movement in India. In December 1885 was born the Indian National Congress under whose leaders.h.i.+p Indians waged a prolonged and courageous struggle for independence from foreign rule, which India finally won on 15 August 1947.

Consequence of Foreign Domination Basically, modem Indian nationalism arose to meet the challenge of foreign domination. The very conditions of British rule helped the growth of national sentiment among the Indian people. It was British rule and its direct and indirect consequences which provided the material, moral and intellectual conditions for the development of a national movement in India.

The root of the matter lay in the clash of the interests of the Indian people with British interests in India. The British had conquered India to promote their own interests and they ruled it primarily with that purpose in view, often subordinating Indian welfare to British gain. The Indians, realised gradually that their interests were being saenfied to those of Lancas.h.i.+re manufacturers and other dominant British interests. They now began to recognise the evils of foreign rule. Many intelligent Indians saw that many of these evils could have been avoided and over-come if Indian and not foreign interests had guided the policies of the Indian Government.

The foundations of the Indian nationalist movement lay in the fact that increasingly British rule became the major cause of India.s economic backwardness. It became the major barrier to India.s further economic, social, cultural, intellectual, and political development. Moreover, this fact began to be recognised by an increasingly larger number of Indians.

Every cla.s.s, every section of Indian society gradually discovered that its interests were suffering at the hands of the foreign rulers. The peasant saw that the Government took away a large part of his produce as land revenue; that the Government and its machinery-the police, the courts, the officials-favoured and protected the zamindars and landlords, who rack-rented him, and the merchants and money-lenders, who cheated and exploited him in diverse ways and who took away his land from him. Whenever the peasant struggled against landlord, money-lender oppression, the police and the army suppressed him in tbe name of law and order.

The artisan or the handicraftsman saw that the foreign regime had helped foreign compet.i.tion to ruin him and had done nothing to rehabilitate him.

Later, in the 20th century, the worker in modern factories, mines, and plantations found that, in spite of lip sympathy, the Government sided with the capitalists, especially the foreign capitalists. Whenever he tried to organise trade unions and to improve his lot through strikes, demonstrations, and other struggles, Government machinery was freely used against him. Moreover, he soon realised that the growing unemployment could be checked only by rapid industrialisation which only an independent government could bring about.

All these three cla.s.ses of Indian society-the peasants, the artisans, the workers, const.i.tuting the overwhelming majority of Indian population- discovered that they had no political rights or powers, and that virtually nothing was being done for their intellectual or cultural improvement. Education did not percolate down to them. There were hardly any schools in villages and the few that were there were poorly run. The doors of higher education were barred to them in practice. Moreover, many of them belonged to the lower castes and had still to bear social and economic oppression by the upper castes.

Other sections of Indian society were no less dissatisfied. The rising intelligentsia-the educated Indians-used their newly acquired modern knowledge to understand the sad economic and political condition of their country. Those who had earlier, as in 1857, support'd British rule in the hope that, though alien, it would modernise and industrialise the country were gradually disappointed. Economically, they had hoped that British capitalism would help develop India.s productive forces as it had done at home. Instead, they Found that British policies in India, guided by the British capitalists at home, were keeping the country economically backward or underdeveloped and checking the development of its productive forces. In fact, economic exploitation by Britain was increasing India's poverty. They began to complain of the extreme costliness of the Indian administration, of the excessive burden of taxation especially on the pea-santry, of the destruction of India.s indigenous industries, of official attempts to check the growth of modern industries through a pro-British tariff policy, of the neglect of nation-building and welfare activities such as education, irrigation, sanitation, and health services. In brief, they could see that Britain was reducing India to the statue of an economic colony, a source of raw materials for British industries, a market for British manufactures, and a field for the investment of British capital. Consequently, they began to realise that so long as imperialist control of the Indian economy continued, it would not be possible to develop it, especially so far as industrialisation was involved.

Politically, educated Indians found that the British had abandoned all previous pretensions of guiding India towards self-government. Most of the British officials and political leaders openly declared that the British were in India to stay. Moreover, instead of increasing the freedom of speech, of th? press, and of the person, the Government increasingly restricted them. British officials and writers declared Indians to be unfit for democracy or self-government. In the field of culture, the rulers were increasing^ taking a negative and even hostile att.i.tude towards higher education and the spread of modern ideas.

Moreover, the Indian intelligentsia suffered from growing unemployment. The few Indians who were educated were not able to find employment and even those who did find jobs discovered that most of the better paid jobs were reserved for the English middle and upper cla.s.ses, who looked upon India as a special pasture for their sons. Thus, educated Indians found that the economic and cultural development of the country and its freedom from foreign control alone could provide them with better employment opportunities.

The rising Indian capitalist cla.s.s was slow in developing a national political consciousness. But it too gradually saw that it was suffering at the hands of imperialism. Its growth was severely checked by the government trade, tariff, taxation, and transport policies. As a new and weak cla.s.s it needed active government help to counterbalance many of its weaknesses. But no such help was given. Instead, the Government and its bureaucracy favoured foreign capitalists who came to India with their vast resources and appropriated the limited industrial field. The Indian capitalists were particularly opposed to the strong compet.i.tion from foreign capitalists. In the 1940.s many of the Indian industrialists demanded that "all British investments in India be repatriated." And, in 1945, M.A. Master, President of the Indian Merchants. Chamber warned: "India would prefer to go without industrial development rather than allow the creation of new East India Companies in this country, which would not only militate against her economio independence but would also effectively prevent her from acquiring her political freedom." The Indian capitalists too therefore realised that there existed a contradiction between imperialism and their own independent growth, and that only a national government would create conditions for the rapid development of Indian trade and industries.

As we have seen in an earlier chapter, the zamindars, landlords, and princes were the only section of Indian society whose interests coincided with those of the foreign rulers and who, therefore, on the whole supported foreign rule to the end. But even from these cla.s.ses, many individuals joined the national movement. In the prevailing nationalist atmosphere, patriotism made an appeal to many. Moreover, policies of racial dominance and discrimination apalled and aroused every thinking and self-respecting Indian to whichever cla.s.s he might belong. Most of all, the foreign character of the British regime in itself produced a natio-nalist reaction, since foreign domination invariably generates patriotic sentiments in the hearts of a subject people.

To sum up, it was as a result of the intrinsic nature of foreign imperialism and of its harmful impact on the lives cf the Indian people that a powerful anti-imperialist movement gradually arose and developed in India. This movement was a national movement because it united people from different cla.s.ses and sections of the society who sank their mutual differences to unite against the common enemy.

Administrative and Economic Unification of the Country Nationalist sentiments grew easily among the people because India was unified and welded into a nation during the 19th and 20th centuries. The British had gradually introduced a uniform and modern system of government throughout the country and thus unified it administratively. The destruction of the rural and local self-sufficient economy and the introduction of modem trade and industries on an all-India scale had increasingly made India's economic life a single whole and inter-linked the economic fa'c of people living in different parts of the country. For example, if famine or scarcity occurred in one part of India, prices and availability of foodstuffs were affected in all other parts of the country too. This was not usually the case before the 19th century. Similarly, the products of a factory in Bombay were sold far north in Lah.o.r.e or Peshawar. The lives of the workers and capitalists in Madras, Bombay, or Calcutta were closely linked with the lives of the countless peasants in rural India. Furthermore, introduction of the railways, telegraphs, and unified postal system had brought the different parts of the country together and promoted mutual contact among the people, especially among the leaders.

Mere again, the very existence of foreign rule acted as a unifying factor. All over the country people saw that they were suffering at the lands of the same enemy-British rule. Thus anti-imperialist feeling was itself a factor in the unification of the country and the emergence of a common national outlook.

Western Thought and Education As a result of the spread of modern western education and thought during the 19th century, a large number of Indians imbibed a modern rational, secular, democratic, and nationalist political outlook. They also began to study, admire, and emulate the contemporary nationalist movements of European nations. Rousseau, Paine, John Stuart Mill, and other western thinkers became their political guides, while Mazzini, Garibaldi, and Irish nationalist leaders became their political heroes.

These educated Indians were the first to fee) the humiliation of foreign subjection. 'By becoming modem in their thinking, they also acquired the ability to study, the evil effects of foreign rale. They -frere inspired by the dieam of a modern, strong, prosperous, and united India. In course of.time, the best among them became the leaders and organisers of the national Movement.

It should be clearly understood that it was not the modern educational system that created the national movement which was the product of the conflict of interests between Britain and India. That system only enabled the educated Indians to imbibe western thought and thus to a.s.sume the leaders.h.i.+p of the national movement and to give it a democratic and modern direction. In fact, in the schools and colleges, the authorities tried to inculcate notions of docility and servility to foreign rule. Nationalist ideas were a part of the general spread of modern ideas. In other Asian countries such as China and Indonesia, and all over Africfe, modern and nationalist ideas spread even though modern schools and colleges existed on a much smaller scale.

Modem education also created a certain uniformity and community of outlook and interests among the educated Indians. The English language played an important role in this respect. It became the medium for the spread of modern ideas. It also became the medium of communication and exchange of ideai between educaLed Indians from -different linguistic regions of the country. This point should not, however, be over-emphasised. After all the educated Indians of the past also possessed a common language in the form of Sanskrit and later on Persian as well. TSlor was English essential for the acquisition of modern scientific knowledge and thought. Other countries of Asia such as j.a.pan and China were able to do so through translations into their own languages. In fact English soon became a barrier to the spread of modern knowledge among the common people. It also acted as a wall separating the educated urban people from the common people, especially in the rural areas. Consequently, it came about that modern ideas spread faster and deeper in many countries where they were propagated through indigenous languages than in India where emphasis on English confined them to a narrow urban section. This fact was fully recognised by the Indian political leaders. From Dadabhai Naoroji, Sayyid Ahmed Khan, and Justice Ranade to Tilak and Gandhiji, they agitated.for a bigger role for the Indian languages in the educational system. In fact, so far as the common people were concerned, the spread of modern ideas occurred through the developing Indian languages, the growing literature in them, and most of all the popular Indian language press. More important than a common language was the fact that modern education introduced identical courses of study all over the country. The books prescribed in the new schools and colleges tended to give the students a common political and economic outlook. Consequently, educated Indians tended to have common views, feelings, aspirations and ideals.

The Sole of the Press and Literature The chief instrument through which the nationalist-minded Indians spread the message of patriotism and modern economic, social and political ideas and created an all-India consciousness was the press. Large numbers of nationalist newspapers made their appearance during the second half of the 19th century. In their columns, the official policies were constantly criticised; the Indian point of view was put forward; the people were asked to unite and work for national welfare; and ideas of self-government, democracy, industrialisation, etc., were popularised among the people. The press also enabled nationalist workers living m different parts of the country to exchange views with one another. Some of the prominent nationalist newspapers of the period were the Hindu Patriot, the Amrita Bazar Patrika, the Indian Mirror, the Bengalee, the Som Prakash and the Sanjivani in Bengal; the Rast Goftar, the Native Opinion, the Indu Prakash, the Mahratta, and the Kesari in Bombay; the Hindut the Swadcsamitran, the Andhra Prakasika, and the Kerala Palrika in Madras; the Advocate, the Hindustani, and the Azad m U. P.; and the Tribune, the Akhbar-i-Am, and the Kofhi-Noor in the Punjab National literature in the form of novels, essays, and patriotic poetry also played an important role in arousing national consciousness. Ban- kim Chandra Chatterjee and Rabindranath Tagore in Bengali, Lakshmt- nath Bezbarua in a.s.samese; Vishnu Shastri Chiplunkar in Marathi, Sub- ramanya Bharali in Tamil; Bharatendu Harishchandrd in Hindi; and Altaf Husain Hall in Urdu were some of the prominent nationalist writers of the period.

Rediscovery of India.s Past Many Indians bad fallen so low as to have lost confidence in their own capacity for self-government. Moreover, many British officials and writers of the time constantly advanced the thesis that Indians had never been able to rule themselves in the past, that Hindus and Muslims had always fought one another, that Indians were destined to be ruled by foreigners, that their religion and social life were degraded and uncivilised making them unfit for democracy or even self-government. Many of the nationalist leaders tried to arouse the self-confidence and self-respect qf the people by countering this propaganda. They pointed to the cultural heritage of India with pride and referred the critics to the political achievements of rulers like Asoka, Chandragupta Vikramaditya, and Akbar. In this task they were helped and encouraged by the work of European and Indian scholars in rediscovering our national heritage in art, architecture, literature, philosophy, science, and politics. Unfortunately, some of the nationalists went to the other extreme and began to glorify India.s past uncritically ignoring its weakness and backwardness. Great harm was done, in particular, by the tendency to look up only to the heritage of ancient India while ignoring the equally great achievements of the medieval period. This encouraged the growth of communal sentiments among the Hindus and the counter tendency among the Muslims of looking to the history of the Arabs and the Turks for cultural and historical inspiration. Moreover, in meeting the challenge of cultural imperialism of the West, many Indians tended to ignore the fact that in many respects the people of India were culturally backward, A false sense of pride and smugness was produced which tended to prevent Indians from looking critically at their society. This weakened the struggle against social and cultural backwardness, and led many Indians to turn away from healthy and fresh tendencies and ideas from other peoples, Racial Arrogance of the Rulers An important though secondary factor in the growth of national sentiments in India was the tone of racial superiority adopted by many Englishmen in their dealings with Indians. Many Englishmen openly insulted even educated Indians and sometimes even a.s.saulted them, A particularly odious and frequent form taken by racial arrogance was the failure of justice whenever an Englishman was involved in a dispute with an Indian. Indian newspapers often published instances in which an Englishmen had hit and killed an Indian but escaped -very lightly, often with a mere fine. This was not only because of conscious partiality by the judges and administrators but even more because of racial prejudice. As G.O. Trevelyan pointed out in 1864: "The testimony of a single one of our countrymen has more weight with the court than that of any number of Hindoos, a circ.u.mstance which puts a terrible instrument of power into the hands of an unscrupulous and grasping Englishman".

Racial arrogance branded all Indians irrespective of their caste, religion, province, or cla.s.s with the badge of inferiority. They were kept out of exclusively European clubs and were often not permitted to travel in the .same compartment in a train with the European pa.s.sengers, This made them conscious of national humiliation, and led them to think of themselves as one people when facing Englishmen.

Immediate Factors By the 1870.s it was evident that Indian nationalism had gathered enough strength and momentum to appear as a major force on the Indian political scene. However, it required the reactionary regime of Lord Lytton to give it visible form and the controversy around the Ilbert Bill to make it take up an organised form.

During Lytton.s viceroyalty from 1876-80 most of the import duties on British textile imports were removed to please the textile manufacturers of Britain. This action Was interpreted by Indians as proof of the British desire to ruin the small but growing textile industry of India. It created a wave of anger in the country and led to widespread nationalist agitation. The Second War against Afghanistan aroused vehement agitation against the heavy cost of this imperialist war which the Indian Treasury was made to bear. The Arms Act of 1878, which disarmed the people, appeared to them as an effort to emasculate the entire nation. The Vernacular Press Act of 1878 was condemned by the politically conscious Indians as an attempt to suppress the growing nationalist criticism of the alien government The holding of the Imperial Durbar at Delhi in 1877 at a time when the country was suffering from a terrible famine led people to believe that their rulers cared very little even for their lives. In 1878, the government announced new regulations reducing the maximum age limit for sitting in the Indian Civil Service Examination from 21 years to 19. Already Indian students had found it difficult to compete with English boys since the examination was conducted in England and in English. The new regulations further reduced their chances of entering the Civil Service. The Indians now realised that the British had no intention of relaxing their near-total monopoly of the higher grades of services in the administration.

Thus, LyttOn.s viceroyalty helped intensify discontent against foreign rule. We may quote in this respect the words of Surendianath Baneijea, one of the founders of the national movement: The reactionary administration of Lord Lytton had aroused the public from Its att.i.tude of indifference and had given a stimulus to public life. In the evolution of political progress, bad rulers are often a blessing in disguise. They help to stir a community into life, a result that years of agitation wguld perhaps have foiled to achieve.

If Lytton fed the smouldering discontent against British rule, the spark was provided by the Ilbert Bill controversy. In 1883, Ripon, who succeeded Lytton as the Viceroy, tried to pa.s.s a law to enable Indian district magistrates and session judges to try Europeans in criminal cases. It was a very meagre effort to remove a glaring instance of racial discrimination, Under the existing law even Indian members of the Indian Civil Service were not authorised to try Europeans in their courts. The Europeans in India organised a vehement agitation against this Bill which came to be known after Ilbert, the Law Member. They poured abuse on Indians and their culture and character. They declared that even the most highly educated among the Indians were unfit to try a European. Some of them even organised a conspiracy to kidnap the Viceroy and deport him to England. In the end, the Government of India bowed before the Europeans and amended the Bill to meet their criticism.

The Indians were horrified at the racial bitterness displayed by the critics of the Bill. They also became more fully conscious of the degradation to which foreign rule had reduced thgm. They organised an all-India campaign in favour of the Bill. And, most of all, they learnt the useful lesson that to get their demands accepted by the Government they too must prganise themselves on a national scale and agitate continuously and unitedly.

Predecessors of the Indian National Congress The Indian National Congress, founded in December 1885, was the first organised expression of the Indian National Movement on an all- India scale. It had, however, many predecessors.

As we have seen in an earlier chapter, Raja Rammohun Roy was the first Indian leader to start an agitation for political reforms in India. The earliest public a.s.sociation in modern India was the Landholders. Society-an a.s.sociation of the landlords of Bengal, Bihar, and Orissa, founded in 1837 with the purpose of promoting the cla.s.s interests of the landlords. Then, in 1843, was organised the Bengal British Indian Society to protect and promote general public interests. These two organisations merged in 1S5I to form the Rritish India a.s.sociation. Similarly, the Madras Native a.s.sociation and the Bombay a.s.sociation were established in 1852 Similar, though lesser known clubs and a.s.sociations, such as the Scientific Society founded by Sayyid Ahmad Khan, were established in different towns and parts of the country. All these a.s.sociations were dominated by wealthy and aristocratic elements- called in those days .prominent persons.-and were provincial or local in character. They worked for reform of administration, a.s.sociation of Indians with the administration, and spread of education, and sent long pet.i.tions, putting forward Indian demands, to the British Parliament.

The period after 1858 witnessed a gradual widening of the gulf between the educated Indians and the British Indian administration. As the educated Indians studied the character of British rule and its consequences for the Indians, they became more and more critical of British policies in India, The discontent gradually found expression in political activity. The existing a.s.sociations no longer satisfied the politically-conscious Indians.

In 1866, Dadabhai Naoroji organised the East India a.s.sociation in London to discuss the Indian question and to influence British public men to promote Indian welfare. Later he organised branches of the a.s.sociation in prominent Indian cities. Born in 1825, Dadabhaj devoted his entire life to the national movement and soon came to be known

as the Grand Old Man of India. He was also India's first economic thinker. In his writings on economics he showed that the basic cause of India.s poverty lay in the British exploitation of India and the drain of its wealth. Dadabhai was honoured by being thrice elected president of the Indian National Congress. In fact he was the first of the long line of popular nationalist leaders of India whose very name stirred the hearts of the people.