Empires in India PDF

Part I: Empires in India Introduction Before the Indian subcontinent became a colony of the British Empire, a different power—the Mughal Empire—governed almost the entire region. At the height of Mughal rule, merchants working for the British East India Company sailed to the subcontinent seeking opp...

Part I: Empires in India Introduction Before the Indian subcontinent became a colony of the British Empire, a different power—the Mughal Empire—governed almost the entire region. At the height of Mughal rule, merchants working for the British East India Company sailed to the subcontinent seeking opportunities to trade and compete with their European rivals in the region. The British East India Company’s commercial, political, and military activities over two centuries paved the way for British rule in the subcontinent between 1858 and 1947. In Part I, you will read about the politics and economy of the Mughal Empire. You will then explore the workings of the British East India Company and how its quest for control over trade in the region laid the foundation for the British Empire in India. Part I Definitions Indian Subcontinent—The peninsula in South Asia, which includes the present-day territories of India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh. Under British rule, the entire Indian subcontinent was referred to as “India.” Provinces—Smaller administrative units within British India (similar to states in the United States). Exports—Goods shipped to other countries. Mercantile Class—Middle-class merchants, bankers, and traders who profited from increased trade on the subcontinent. The Mughal Empire Mughal art, architecture, and culture blended Indian, Persian, and Islamic styles. One of the most famous examples of Mughal architecture is the Taj Mahal, a mausoleum built out of white marble for Emperor Shah Jahan’s (r. 1628-58) wife. Library of Congress. LC-USZC4-3582. When the British first arrived on the Indian subcontinent, they were a small group of traders entering one of the largest and most successful empires of the time—the Mughal Empire. The Mughals ruled over a territory that spanned from present-day Pakistan to the southern region of modern India. Trade routes linked the Mughals to the globe, while a common culture of architecture, art, religion, and literature connected people within the subcontinent. To understand how the subcontinent came to be ruled by the British, it is necessary to understand the Mughal Empire. What was the Mughal Empire? David Gilmartin, North Carolina State University How did the Mughal Empire begin? In the 1520s, Mughal warriors from Central Asia invaded and conquered Hindu and Muslim kingdoms in the northwestern part of the subcontinent. The leader of these Mughal invasions, Babur, was a descendant of Genghis Khan (the thirteenth-century emperor of the Mongol Empire) and Timur (the fourteenth-century ruler in Central Asia). Babur’s conquests were crucial for creating an expansive Mughal Empire. Military campaigns under the third Mughal emperor, Akbar (r. 1556–1605), greatly expanded the empire. Conquests under Akbar brought the northeastern region of Bengal, one of the best lands for agriculture and commerce, under Mughal control. Over two centuries later, Bengal would become valuable to Europeans seeking to profit from Indian trade. The Great [Mughal], considering his territories, his wealth, and his rich commodities, is the greatest known King of the east, if not of the world...." Father Edward Terry, chaplain to Thomas Roe, a member of the British House of Commons, 1616-1619 At the height of the empire, the Mughals ruled over somewhere between 100 and 150 million people. Eighty to 90 percent of the people living under Mughal rule were Hindu, Christian, Jewish, or had other religious identities. For the most part, the Mughals, who were Muslim, did not impose Islamic laws on the communities they ruled and tolerated other religions. How did Emperor Akbar structure the empire? As early as the 1560s, the Mughal Empire had a government system in place to collect taxes and recruit soldiers. Under Emperor Akbar, this was called the mansabdari system (mansab means rank). Mansabdars, nobles appointed by the emperor, were assigned to a specific territory and expected to recruit anywhere between ten to several thousand cavalry for the Mughal army. In return, mansabdars received the right to collect taxes on the land. Mansabdars came from many different ethnic and religious backgrounds, yet communicated in Persian. In 1580, Akbar divided the territories of the Mughal Empire into provinces with districts and subdistricts. This step improved the organization of the empire and allowed the Mughals to better control vast stretches of land. Over the next hundred years, the empire continued to expand across the subcontinent. How was India governed prior to British rule? Vazira Zamindar, Brown University How did a scarcity of agricultural lands weaken Mughal authority? During the late seventeenth century, the Mughals’ ongoing attempts to expand southward created a serious crisis for the mansabdari system. Although the Mughal Empire controlled almost the entire subcontinent, there was a severe shortage of agricultural land that could be offered to the growing number of mansabdars. Many mansabdars who expected to receive a tract of land as payment for their services were left empty-handed. These unfulfilled promises weakened the loyalty between the emperor and his mansabdars and sparked discontent among many who had been trusted allies of the empire. Who challenged the authority of the Mughal Empire? Facing debt, Emperor Aurangzeb (r. 1658-1707) raised taxes on agricultural lands and areas that were part of overland trade routes. With higher taxes, the emperor hoped to cover the costs of the large imperial army and continue territorial expansion. For many members of Indian society, the tax increases were a difficult, if not impossible, burden to bear. As a result, dissatisfied mansabdars and peasants challenged the emperor’s authority. More unrest soon followed. Following the death of Aurangzeb in 1707, the Mughal Empire faced several other challenges­—invasions by foreign forces, the rise of regional rulers, and the growing presence of European trade companies on the eastern and western coasts of the subcontinent. In the 1730s, the Mughals lost large tracts of territory in the central subcontinent to the Marathas, a group of Hindu warriors. Persian and Afghan warriors invading from the northwest conquered other Mughal territories and formed regional kingdoms. Within the empire, peasant communities such as the Sikhs (a religious minority in the northwest) and Jats (an agricultural group in the north) also rose up to form independent states. By the 1740s, the highest-ranking mansabdars, who served as governors in the provinces of Bengal, Awadh, and the Deccan, declared their independence from the emperor. These newly independent rulers were known as nawabs and would come to play a key role in the negotiations over trade rights with European companies. The era of strong Mughal control over the subcontinent had come to an end. As the Mughal Empire weakened, European trade companies saw an opportunity to take control over trading rights and territories in the Indian subcontinent. As the strongest trading company in the region, the British East India Company plotted to seize control over profitable regions. Over time, the British East India Company would become a conquering power with the desire to rule all of India. The British East India Company At the turn of the seventeenth century, a group of British traders sailed to the subcontinent to enter the spice trade. Under the name of the British East India Company, they quickly formed relationships with Indian traders and authorities in the port cities that dotted the coast. While Company members focused on business during their first one hundred years in India, they eventually found that territorial control was necessary to dominate trade in the region. With time, almost the entire Indian subcontinent would fall under British influence. What was the British East India Company? The British East India Company (first called the English East India Company) was established by a royal decree from the queen of England in 1600. The Company, a joint-stock corporation, was not funded by the British government, but by individual shareholders. Investors made payments up front to fund long trade voyages and, in return, the Company promised them a portion of the profits. The British East India Company was created to compete with Dutch traders, who were shipping goods to Europe from the “East” and making spices expensive to purchase. When members of the Company first set sail, they planned to set up posts in the East Indies (modern-day Indonesia), which were territories known for spices. But when the British arrived, the Dutch refused to give them access to their ports. As a backup plan, the Company traveled to nearby India where it negotiated with the Mughal emperor to carry out trade in the subcontinent. In 1617, the Mughal Empire gave the Company permission to establish warehouses for storing goods in Surat, a city on the western coast. The Company mainly operated from three ports during its first century in India­—Bombay, Calcutta, and Madras (see map). At first, the Company traded bullion—gold and silver—for Indian pepper. With time, the British also shipped spices, coffee, textiles, and other goods to Europe. By the end of the seventeenth century, the Company had transformed the coastal towns of Bombay, Calcutta, and Madras, three major cities for the export of cotton textiles, into headquarters for its growing enterprise. The British called these commercial bases “presidencies.” Why did Mughal rulers want to negotiate with the British? When the British East India Company arrived in India, the Mughal emperor was reluctant to negotiate with more European traders. But realizing that new competition could weaken the growing influence of Dutch and Portuguese companies, the Mughals soon granted the British formal rights to trade. The structure of the British East India Company also posed less of a threat to the Mughals. Other groups, such as the Portuguese, were run by their governments and often mixed trade with conquest and religious conversion. The Company, however, was owned by individual investors. It had the flexibility to conduct business with local merchants and politicians without involving the British Crown. How did the British East India Company end up controlling the Indian subcontinent? David Gilmartin, North Carolina State University As time went on, it became difficult for the Company to remain uninvolved in politics. In the 1700s, some regional rulers offered the British trading rights in exchange for military assistance. The Royal British Navy, which was stationed along the Indian coast to intimidate the French, carried out the orders of various Mughal rulers. The Company found it increasingly challenging to sustain its reputation as solely a trading business. Global Trade Trade networks across the Indian Ocean linked the economies, religions, and cultures of China, western Asia (including the Indian subcontinent), and Arabia. At the start of the sixteenth century, several decades before the establishment of the Mughal Empire, Portuguese traders set up coastal settlements in the Indian subcontinent. Other Europeans—the Dutch, French, and English—followed. European traders hoped to profit from valuable Indian commodities such as spices, coffee, and textiles. The expanding Mughal Empire came to rely more heavily on profits from oceanic trade. Simultaneously, the British became the most powerful group of traders in the region. “The commerce of India is courted by all the trading nations in the world, and probably has been so from the earliest ages: the greatest share of it is now centered in England.”​ —Excerpt from Geography for Youth, or a Plain and Easy Introduction to the Science of Geography, for the Use of Young Gentlemen and Ladies, a geography textbook used in Great Britain, 1782 How did increased trade along the coast change the Mughal Empire? By the early 1700s, global commerce had changed the economy and politics of the Mughal Empire. The growth of oceanic trade gave certain groups—merchants, bankers, and landowners—more access to wealth and resources. These groups formed an Indian mercantile class that handled issues related to trade. Bankers financed new business operations, while merchants worked with local producers to meet the rising demand for Indian goods abroad. Other changes occurred within the Mughal administration. Responsibilities once reserved for appointed Mughal officials were shared with the developing mercantile class. For example, merchants and bankers began to collect taxes for the empire from local and foreign traders. The British East India Company had connections to the individuals gaining authority in the empire. These were the same trading families, merchants, and bankers they had been negotiating with for years. The Company would take advantage of these relationships to increase its economic and political power in India. What events led to a confrontation between the Company and the nawab of Bengal? In the mid-1700s, the British East India Company’s profits from trade were rapidly growing. The Company shipped 75 percent of its exports from the port of Calcutta, the provincial capital of Bengal. Wanting more revenue, Company members began trading grains and other goods not included in their original trade contract with the nawab of Bengal. The Company did not request permission from the nawab before proceeding with its plan. Around this time, Britain was fighting a war against France, Prussia, and Spain (the War of Austrian Succession) in Europe and along the Indian coast. To protect its trade posts from French threats, the British East India Company built fortifications around its warehouses in Calcutta. The new nawab of Bengal, Siraj-ud-daula, interpreted the Company’s illegal trading and new military fortifications as a direct threat to his authority. In June 1756, the nawab sent troops to Calcutta and imprisoned anyone associated with the Company. Forty British members died while being held in captivity. (The British later named this event the “Black Hole of Calcutta.”) The situation greatly startled the British who realized they could lose valuable trade if Mughal authorities continued to challenge them. British Expansion Begins with Bengal The confrontation between the nawab of Bengal and the Company in 1756 was a sign that the British were walking a fine line. How could the Company continue to grow if Mughal and regional authorities wanted to restrain it? British efforts to resolve this issue quickly entangled them in the politics of Bengal and India at large. How did the Company intervene in the politics of Bengal? A British ship sailing down the Ganges river in Bihar, a province neighboring Bengal. Circa 1791. Yale Center for British Art, Paul Mellon Collection. Public Domain. Given that Bengal was the Company’s most profitable port, General Robert Clive traveled from Madras to address the situation. He quickly devised a scheme to replace the local nawab. Clive wanted a ruler who would be more favorable to the Company regarding taxes and rights to trade from the port of Calcutta. Clive turned to Indian groups displeased with Siraj-ud-daula for support: bankers and merchants who were upset with the nawab for overtaxing their businesses, and the Mughal emperor who was troubled by the nawab’s attempts to make Bengal an independent state. Along with Clive, these groups and the nawab’s second-in-command, Mir Jafar, agreed to force Siraj-ud-daula out of office. At an event known to the British as the Battle of Plassey, Clive’s forces quickly defeated the nawab’s army. Only a few shots were fired before Siraj-ud-daula agreed to resign. As planned, Mir Jafar became the new nawab of Bengal. After the battle, Mir Jafar did not honor the financial promises he had made to the Company. Yet again, the British negotiated with local groups and political elites to overthrow Mir Jafar. As various leaders filled the position of the nawab of Bengal, none could fully satisfy the increasing demands of the British East India Company. And this is the way your Gentlemen behave; they make a disturbance all over my country, plunder the people, injure and disgrace my servants…. They forcibly take away the goods and commodities of the peasants, merchants, etc., for a fourth part of their value...." Mir Kasim, nawab of Bengal, in a letter to the British governor of Bengal, May 1762 How did the Company gain control of Bengal? Some Indians in Bengal opposed the Company’s growing political involvement. In 1764, a former nawab convinced the Mughal emperor and the nawab of Awadh to send Indian troops to challenge the British. In the Battle of Buxar, the Company’s army defeated the emperor’s regiment. In the treaty following the battle, the Company received rights to control the political offices and military forces in Bengal. The Company now governed the province even though on paper it still belonged to the Mughal Empire. Warren Hastings was named the first governor-general of the territory. Control of Bengal was a critical first step to the British controlling other regions in India. With the taxes collected in Bengal, the Company had the funds it needed to expand into other parts of the subcontinent. [B]engal is the brightest jewel in the British Crown, though at present in a rude and unpolished state; that if it be once properly improved and burnished, it will eclipse every thing of the kind that has been yet seen in the world; but that if it be once suffered to drop out and be lost, the crown will lose half its splendor and dignity." Robert Clive, speaking before the British Parliament, 1772 How did the Company incorporate religion into the laws of Bengal? By seizing control of Bengal, the Company could now regulate the province’s laws, tax collection, and other government functions. Although Mughal legal traditions were in place to govern Indians, the Company wanted to implement new laws. However, the Company believed that its own legal system, that of Great Britain, was not an option for Bengal. Even though British officials had worked in India for centuries, they perceived Indians to be too foreign and less civilized than white Europeans. How has religion influenced the history of India and Pakistan? Vazira Zamindar, Brown University The British believed that Indians should instead be governed by the “original” laws of their land. Company officials turned to the most ancient texts they could find, which happened to be religious. They hired Indian translators to interpret the Vedas and the Qur’an. With these translations, the British crafted two different legal codes, one for Hindus and the other for Muslims. By only offering two religious codes, the Company ignored the fact that some Indians were Sikhs, Christians, or atheists. The insistence by the British that Hindus and Muslims were fundamentally different, and needed to be ruled with separate laws, set in motion a trend of dividing communities along religious lines. Hinduism and Islam Hinduism and Islam are two major religions on the Indian subcontinent. Today, the majority of people on the subcontinent practice Hinduism, while a large minority identify as Muslim. Others identify as Sikh, Jain, Christian, agnostic, and atheist. The term “Hinduism” was not used to define a unified religious group until India was colonized by the British in the 1800s. While a variety of Hindu beliefs have similar ancient roots, people adhering to these beliefs previously identified with smaller religious groups, or sects. A few ancient texts are central to many forms of Hinduism. The Vedas, a collection of sacred writings, include prayers, hymns, philosophy, and guidelines for earthly life, and the Bhagavad Gita addresses how followers show their devotion to God. Multiple gods and goddesses appear in Hindu texts, but most Hindus are monotheistic (worship one god). Monotheistic Hindus believe in an ultimate God who represents the qualities of other gods, some more than others. Many Hindus also believe in reincarnation or samsara, life on earth after death. Islam originated in the 600s with a man named Muhammad who lived in Mecca (a city in present-day Saudi Arabia). Muslims believe that Muhammad was the final prophet sent by God to receive and share God’s will. The Prophet shared the words of God with others who recorded his revelations in the Qur’an, a sacred Islamic text. The Five Pillars of Islam come from the Qur’an: faith in God, ritual prayer, giving to those in need, fasting, and visiting Mecca. Similar to Hinduism, the way Islam is practiced depends on where Muslims live, their family traditions, and the division they follow. There are two main branches (or sects) of Islam: Sunni and Shi‘i. Differences among these groups began over who they believe was appointed to lead the Muslim community after the death of the Prophet Muhammad. Also, some Shi‘i Muslims believe that religious and political authority is represented together through imams, or religious guides, while some Sunni Muslims believe in separate political and religious authorities. Why did the British government take a more active role in India? The Company made large profits in Bengal, but a series of political and military scandals put it on the verge of bankruptcy. In London, rumors of corrupt Company officials had caused the price of the Company’s stock to drop. Facing bankruptcy, the Company turned to the British government for loans to stay afloat. Many members of the British government supported the Company either politically or financially, but feared growing demands among the British public to put an end to the Company’s mismanagement. To curb corruption, the British Parliament implemented the Regulating Act of 1773, which gave the British government the right to regulate Company activities. The directors of the Company were required to send documents on all civil and military activity and revenue in India to the British government in London. The act was not always effective due to the distance between London and the colonial capital of Calcutta. To fix some of the limitations of the Regulating Act, the British Parliament implemented Pitt’s India Act of 1784. The act set up a Board of Control in London to review Company activities. The Company kept its right to control trade, but all other activities would come under the regular review of the British government. Over time, the British government placed even more restrictions on the Company. How did the British change the land system in Bengal? In India, land was not something individuals owned, but something one inherited or received from the emperor. The Mughal government, local land revenue collectors (zamindars), and peasants working the land all shared rights to the property. The British were stunned by this system. From their perspective, individual property ownership was necessary for economic success, stability, and proper taxation. In 1793, the British passed the Bengal Permanent Settlement Act at the urging of the second governor-general, Charles Cornwallis. The law granted official land ownership to zamindars in Bengal. Zamindars could keep the land or sell their property if they were unable to pay taxes. The security of private property is the greatest encouragement to industry, on which the wealth of every state depends." Warren Hastings, first governor-general, writing to the Board of Directors, 1772 The Permanent Settlement Act most drastically affected Indian peasants (small farmers), who were left without any rights to the land they and their families had worked on for generations. Peasants became renters of the land and were forced to pay the zamindars. (Unlike Bengal, in other parts of the subcontinent—Madras, Bombay, and Punjab—the British gave large numbers of peasants property rights.) Within the first twenty years, over a third of Bengal’s land was sold to new owners. Workers who could not afford to pay the newly imposed rents were forced to move. The outcome of the Permanent Settlement Act worsened the situation for Indians already struggling with the lingering hardships of famine that swept the region in 1769.  By 1850, the Company directly ruled 60 percent of the subcontinent (one million square miles). The Company ruled the remaining 40 percent indirectly. Direct and Indirect Rule The British East India Company controlled new territories in the Indian subcontinent through direct and indirect rule. Bengal is an example of a region that fell under the direct rule of the Company by an official treaty. In territories under direct control, the Company collected taxes on the land, structured the legal system, and made decisions to wage war. Indirect rule meant that the Company influenced certain provinces without formally governing them. In exchange for the Company’s military protection against revolts and invasions, Indian rulers (often called “princes”) gave the Company access to goods and trade. In some cases, they paid the British directly. The British favored indirect rule in the provinces they believed were less profitable. How did the British treat Indians in the government? When the Company first gained control of Bengal, most Indians holding administrative positions in the province kept their jobs. With time, the British belief that they were racially superior to Indians changed the structure of the government. It became clear that the British did not believe Indians should represent the British government. In 1793, the British created the Indian Civil Service to train British citizens to replace Indian revenue collectors, police officers, and judges. In 1802, the College of Fort William at Calcutta was opened to teach incoming British workers languages in the region. More and more Indians lost their jobs or were demoted. I observe with great concern the system of depressing [Indians] adopted by the present government and imitated in the manners of almost every European. They are excluded from all posts of great respectability.... The functions of magistrate and judge are performed by Europeans who know neither the laws nor the language of the country, and with an enormous expense to the Company." General Palmer in a letter to Warren Hastings, October 10, 1802 The Trial of Warren Hastings “[W]e have brought before your Lordships the first man in rank.... [O]ne in whom all the frauds, all the [stealing], all the violence, all the tyranny, in India are embodied, disciplined, and arrayed.” —Edmund Burke, February 15, 1788 In 1788, the first governor-general of Bengal, Warren Hastings, was brought to trial in Britain on charges of corruption and fraud. The prosecution, led by Edmund Burke, provided evidence of Hastings accepting bribes from local Indian rulers and abusing his authority at the expense of the Indian people. During his first years as governor-general, Hastings fixed prices for agricultural products and other goods at low rates in order to sell them for large profits abroad. Fixed prices meant lower incomes for Indians and left Bengal stricken with poverty and famine. Burke appealed to the British Parliament on the grounds that “natural law” called for the protection of all people, colonized or not, against the political and economic abuse of Hastings. Given the recent loss of the American colonies, Burke also argued that Britain needed to begin recognizing the plight of those living under its governance. Despite Burke’s appeals to a higher sense of justice, the British Parliament acquitted (excused) Hastings in 1795. The seven-year trial of Warren Hastings was important because it raised questions about the nature and accountability of British rule in India. It also involved the British public in grappling with these questions. Who was the British East India Company accountable to? What rights and freedoms did the people of India have under British governance? “According to the judgement that you shall give upon the past transactions in India... the whole character of your future government in that distant empire will be unalterably decided.” —Edmund Burke, 1788 How did the British treat Indians in the military? The Company needed forces to support its expansion on the subcontinent and reinforce British troops throughout the globe. Therefore, the Company recruited sepoys (Indian soldiers) to join its military. A clear hierarchy existed between British and Indian soldiers; the British filled positions of authority, while Indians remained in lower ranks. At first, the British made an effort to be sensitive to the religious beliefs and rituals of the sepoys. Eventually, British tolerance began to shift. Religious discrimination and racism characterized many Indians’ experiences in the military. But, over and above those considerations, it may be said with great truth, that such is the aversion which the English openly show for the company of natives; and such the [disgust] which they betray for them, that no love, and no coalition...can take root between the conquerors and the conquered...." Ghulam Husain Khan Tabatabai, writer and historian based in Calcutta, 1789 The Great Revolt of 1857 Photograph of a division in the British East India Company’s Madras Army. These sepoys helped the British put down rebellions in Lucknow in November 1857. Felice Beato, 1857-8. Wikimedia Commons. By 1850, the Company had brought the entire Indian subcontinent under its influence. British rule fueled resentment among various sectors of Indian society. Beginning in the spring of 1857, sepoys of the British East India Company’s Bengal Army rose up against their British officers. The sepoys took up arms and killed British officers over the injustices they had faced for years. Encouraged by the armed protests of the sepoys, Indian civilians joined the revolt to voice their own concerns. Protests against the British were not uncommon, but the Great Revolt affected a larger area than ever before. What was the Great Revolt of 1857? Vazira Zamindar, Brown University What was the immediate cause of the Great Revolt? The Great Revolt began in the Bengal Army, one of the British East India Company’s three armies. Most historians agree that the event that sparked the Great Revolt was the sepoys’ refusal to use Lee Enfield rifles. The cartridges used in the Lee Enfield rifles had to be bitten open before loading them. News spread like wildfire among the sepoys that the grease used on the cartridges was made from the fat of cows (sacred to Hindus) or of pigs (not eaten by Muslims). Hindu and Muslim sepoys found the grease religiously offensive and suspected that it was part of a British conspiracy to convert them to Christianity. On May 10, 1857, when a group of sepoys posted at the British base in Meerut (see map) refused to use the greased cartridges, they were publicly humiliated, expelled from service, and imprisoned. The next day, sepoys at the base rescued their imprisoned comrades and proceeded to kill British officers and English residents in the town. The sepoys then marched to Delhi, where they seized the city from the British and declared the current Mughal emperor, Bahadur Shah Zafar, the symbolic leader of their revolt. Who joined the revolt? From Delhi, the military rebellions spread across northern and central India. Within a couple of weeks, almost the entire Bengal Army (totaling over 130,000 men) had risen up against their British officers. Civilians, including landlords, peasants, princes, artisans, laborers, merchants, and policemen, also joined the growing revolt. As regards the Rebellion of 1857, the fact is that for a long period, many grievances had been [brewing] in the hearts of the people." From Syed Ahmed Khan’s pamphlet “The Causes of the Indian Revolt” that was read by many British officials, 1873 Indian rebels, whether they were sepoys or civilians, shared similar concerns, but they did not always have the same goals. Some rebels opposed British policies that had caused them social and economic hardships. Other rebels felt deprived of the political status they had held before British rule. Some groups felt that British policies disrespected local traditions and customs. There were also rebels who used the Great Revolt as an opportunity to fight for power within and among local communities. Lastly, some Indians joined for fear of being killed if they did not participate. Although many rebelled, not all sepoys participated in the revolt. Two regions—Bengal and the Punjab in the northern part of the subcontinent—remained relatively quiet due to the presence of large British forces. Many sepoys from the Punjab and Nepal fought alongside the British to put down the revolt. How violent was the Great Revolt? “The Angel of Resurrection” pictured above was sculpted by Carlo Marochetti to honor the British lives lost during the Kanpur massacre. Samuel Bourne, 1860. Wikimedia Commons. Both sides—the rebels and the British (and the sepoys who supported them)—used tremendous violence. One extreme example is an event known as the Kanpur massacre. In June 1857, a group of Indian rebels seized the British fort in Kanpur, killed the British troops, and then killed about two hundred women and children whom they had promised not to harm. The Kanpur massacre led to demands among the British in India and Great Britain for revenge and justice. Our house in India is on fire. We are not insured. To lose that house would be to lose power, prestige, and character—to descend in the rank of nations…." Illustrated London News, July 4, 1857 The rebel forces controlled much of northern India by the end of June, but faced the ruthless violence used by the British to take back control. British attempts to put down the revolt included public executions, the burning of entire villages close to rebel centers, and blowing up sepoys with cannons. Tens of thousands of sepoys and civilians were killed. Delhi, the symbolic center of the revolt, was recaptured by the British on September 20, 1857. It’s said that people live on hope—I have no hope even of living." Mirza Asadullah Khan Ghalib, an Urdu poet who lived through the Great Revolt The British gradually took back control of all lost territories by the spring of 1859. Suppressing the revolt cost an immense sum of money, which would eventually fall on the shoulders of Indian taxpayers. How did the British respond to the Great Revolt of 1857? David Gilmartin, North Carolina State University How did the British Crown become the ruler of India? Despite the widespread Indian participation in the Great Revolt, the British never doubted their right to rule India. Britain’s most pressing concern was not to improve conditions for Indians, but to prevent another revolt from happening and preserve British authority. Several months before the Great Revolt ended, the British Parliament decided to end the British East India Company’s rule in India. The Company was abolished and its 250 years of activity in the subcontinent came to an end. On August 2, 1858, the British Parliament passed the Act for the Better Government of India, which made Queen Victoria the ruler of British territories in India. All of the Company’s territories, administrative offices, revenue, and military and naval forces were transferred to the Crown. The act also created a new position—the secretary of state for India—who reported directly to the British Parliament in London. The secretary of state for India would communicate closely with the viceroy (formerly known as the governor-general) living in India. The Act for the Better Government of India went into effect on November 1, 1858. On that same day, Queen Victoria issued a proclamation that promised that her subjects in India, regardless of their race, religion, or caste (a social ranking), would be treated equally under the law. The queen’s statement was an empty promise. In the minds of most British officials, the Great Revolt was further evidence that Indians were racially inferior, if not barbaric. As colonial subjects, Indians would never enjoy the rights of “freeborn Englishmen” and would not be treated equally before the law. We declare it to be Our Royal Will…that all shall alike enjoy the equal and impartial protection of the Law...." Excerpt from Queen Victoria’s proclamation, November 1, 1858 British officials set out to answer several questions. Now that the Indian colony belonged to the British Crown, how should it be governed on a day-to-day basis? What steps needed to be taken to prevent a rebellion similar to the Great Revolt from occurring again? How should groups of Indians seeking political representation be treated? How could Britain make more profits from its Indian colony? The answers British officials found to these questions had dire consequences for Indians. A new era of repression, censorship, and widespread hardship was about to begin.