Chapter-5 : Expansion and Consolidation of British Rule in India
British Rule in India: Expansion and Consolidation
Early Motivations and Strategies (17th – Mid-18th Centuries)
- Focus on Trade:The British East India Company prioritized trade, establishing factories (trading posts) in coastal regions.
- Exploiting Political Instability:The fragmented political landscape in India allowed the British to manipulate local rulers for trade concessions and influence.
- Military Intervention:Wars secured trade routes and established alliances (e.g., Subsidiary Alliance System) that obligated Indian states to provide military support to the British.
Shifting Goals and Methods (Late 18th Century Onwards)
- Imperial Ambitions:British officials and politicians in Britain increasingly desired a full-fledged empire in India.
- Profit Motive:The immense wealth generated from trade in India fueled further expansionist ambitions.
- Military Victories:Decisive victories like Plassey (1757) weakened rival powers (French) and established British dominance.
- Aggressive Governors:Governors like Lord Wellesley (1798-1818) actively expanded British control through warfare and alliances.
- Shift in Terminology:Territories were no longer “acquired” but “conquered,” reflecting a more assertive British stance.
Challenges and Rivalries
- Maratha Power:The Marathas remained a significant force in India until their defeat at Panipat (1761).
- European Competition:France also sought influence in India, leading to Anglo-French conflicts.
The Long Road to Consolidation (c. 80 Years)
- Gradual Process:Establishing complete British control took a long time, marked by continuous warfare and political maneuvering.
- Lingering Rivalries:Even after key victories, the British didn’t completely eliminate regional powers like Mysore.
- Historical Context:Modern perspectives might not fully capture the complexities of the era’s power dynamics.
Unresolved Questions
- Reasons for British Success:Historians debate why the British conquered India with relative ease. Factors like internal conflicts within India and European rivalries are considered.
Additional Notes
- The British conquest of India can be seen as a multifaceted process driven by a combination of economic, political, and military factors.
- The timeline of British expansion is not clear-cut, with different historians proposing various turning points (e.g., 1740, 1757, 1761).
- Understanding British rule in India requires acknowledging both the agency of the British and the complex political landscape of pre-colonial India.
Why Did the British Succeed in India?
Military Superiority
- British firearms (muskets, cannons) surpassed Indian weaponry in firing speed and range.
- Indian attempts to modernize (hiring European officers) lacked originality and discipline.
Discipline and Organization
- The British employed a professional army with regular salaries and strict discipline.
- Indian rulers often struggled to pay troops, leading to reliance on unreliable mercenaries.
Leadership and Administration
- British officers were chosen based on merit, leading to a competent and loyal force.
- Indian leadership relied on hereditary positions and personal ties, compromising effectiveness.
Strong Leadership
- Figures like Clive, Hastings, and Dalhousie provided exceptional strategic direction.
- Second-tier British leaders were highly motivated and patriotic.
- While India had talented leaders (Haider Ali, Tipu Sultan), they lacked a cohesive team or a unified national vision.
Financial Strength
- The East India Company’s profits funded wars and expansion.
- England’s global trade provided vast resources and economic power.
- Most Indian states faced financial constraints, hindering military investment.
Nationalist Drive
- British national pride and a focus on material advancement fueled their ambition.
- Fragmented Indian kingdoms lacked a sense of national unity or a shared vision.
Bengal on the Eve of British Conquest
Bengal’s Prosperity
- Richest province of the Mughal Empire (present-day Bangladesh, Bihar, Odisha)
- Major exports: saltpeter, rice, indigo, textiles, etc.
- Flourishing trade attracted the British East India Company (EIC).
British East India Company in Bengal
- Established factories (trading posts) in Bengal (1630s onwards).
- Calcutta founded (1690s) as a key commercial center.
- Paid a small annual tax to the Mughal emperor for trade rights.
- EIC exports from Bengal far exceeded the tax paid (over £50,000 annually).
Factors Contributing to Bengal’s Prosperity
- Relatively stable compared to other regions facing conflicts.
- Population boom in Calcutta (15,000 in 1706 to 100,000 in 1750).
- Other prosperous cities like Dacca and Murshidabad.
Friction Between Bengal and EIC
- Nawabs (governors) of Bengal resented EIC’s special privileges.
- EIC’s trade concessions led to loss of revenue for Bengal.
- Growing tension laid the groundwork for future conflict.
Alivardi Khan’s Rule (1741-1756)
- Defeated Maratha incursions, maintained stability.
- Granted permission to the EIC to fortify Calcutta (later regretted).
Siraj-ud-Daulah Inherits Challenges (1756)
- Young and inexperienced ruler facing internal conflicts.
- Rivals within the court and a discontented population.
- Alarmed by the growing power of the EIC.
The Battle of Plassey and British Expansion in Bengal
Tensions Leading to Plassey (1756)
- British East India Company (EIC) misused trade privileges, harming Bengal’s finances.
- EIC fortified Calcutta without permission and harbored a fugitive, Krishna Das.
- Nawab Siraj-ud-Daulah suspected EIC collusion with the French and attacked Fort William (Calcutta).
- The “Black Hole Tragedy” (disputed by historians) further strained relations.
Clive, Conspiracy, and Conquest (1757)
- Robert Clive led a reinforced British force from Madras to Bengal.
- Clive secretly formed an alliance with Mir Jafar, a disloyal nawab official.
- The pact promised Mir Jafar the throne in exchange for aiding the British.
- With this betrayal, the British army under Clive defeated Siraj’s larger force at Plassey (June 23, 1757).
- Siraj was captured and murdered by Mir Jafar’s son.
Aftermath of Plassey
- Mir Jafar became Nawab, paying a large sum and ceding the zamindari of 24 Parganas to the EIC.
- The Battle of Plassey is considered a turning point for British dominance in India.
- The EIC gained:
- Political influence: Effective control over Bengal’s affairs.
- Military superiority: Established dominance over French rivals.
- Economic benefits: Virtual monopoly on Bengal’s trade.
Mir Kasim (1760-1763)
- Mir Jafar’s growing frustration with EIC interference led to a failed conspiracy with the Dutch.
- Mir Kasim became Nawab in 1760 after a treaty with the EIC.
- Key points of the treaty:
- Ceded territories to the EIC (Burdwan, Midnapur, Chittagong).
- Agreed to trade concessions and financial obligations.
- Mir Jafar was forced to resign in favor of Mir Kasim.
- Key points of the treaty:
Mir Kasim’s Reforms
- Mir Kasim attempted to assert control by:
- Shifting the capital from Murshidabad to Munger.
- Reorganizing the bureaucracy and reforming the army.
- These reforms clashed with EIC interests, leading to further conflict.
The Battle of Buxar and The Treaty of Allahabad
Friction Between Mir Kasim and EIC (1760s)
- Mir Kasim, Nawab of Bengal (1760-1763), clashed with the EIC over:
- EIC officials’ abuse of trade permits (dastaks) for private gain.
- Loss of tax revenue due to EIC’s duty-free trade privileges.
- EIC’s support for defiant officials like Ram Narayan of Bihar.
Outbreak of War (1763)
- Mir Kasim attempted to abolish transit duties, further straining relations.
- The EIC defeated Mir Kasim’s forces in a series of battles (Katwa, Murshidabad, etc.).
- Mir Kasim fled to Awadh, forming an alliance with the Nawab of Awadh and the Mughal Emperor.
The Battle of Buxar (1764)
- A combined army led by Mir Kasim, the Nawab of Awadh, and the Mughal Emperor faced defeat by the British under Major Hector Munro.
- Significance of Buxar:
- EIC victory established them as a major power in North India.
- Mughal Emperor’s defeat signified a decline in Mughal authority.
Aftermath of Buxar
- Mir Jafar, reinstated as Nawab, ceded territories (Midnapore, Burdwan, Chittagong) for EIC troop maintenance.
- EIC gained duty-free trade in Bengal (except a 2% salt tax).
- Najmud-daulah, a minor, became Nawab with a British-appointed naib-subahdar holding real power.
The Treaty of Allahabad (1765)
- Two treaties negotiated by Robert Clive:
- With the Nawab of Awadh:
- Awadh ceded Allahabad and Kara to the Mughal Emperor.
- Paid 50 lakh rupees as war indemnity.
- Recognized Balwant Singh’s control over Banaras.
- With the Mughal Emperor:
- Emperor resided at Allahabad under EIC protection.
- Granted the EIC the diwani (tax collection rights) of Bengal, Bihar, and Orissa for an annual payment.
- Received 53 lakh rupees from the EIC for the nizamat (administration) rights.
- With the Nawab of Awadh:
Strategic Considerations Behind the Treaty
- Clive avoided annexing Awadh to escape the burden of defending a large territory.
- A friendly Awadh served as a buffer state against Afghan and Maratha threats.
- The Mughal Emperor, weakened by the defeat, became a mere figurehead, legitimizing EIC’s gains through a farman (decree).
Fate of Mir Kasim
- Lived in exile until his death in 1777.
Dual Government in Bengal (1765-1772)
The System
- Introduced by Robert Clive after the Battle of Buxar (1764).
- Divided power between the EIC and the Nawab of Bengal.
- EIC controlled:
- Diwani (revenue collection) through appointed deputy diwans (Mohammad Reza Khan for Bengal).
- Nizamat (administration) indirectly through the right to appoint the deputy subahdar (also often Mohammad Reza Khan).
Advantages for the EIC
- Maintained a facade of Mughal authority with the Nawab as a puppet ruler.
- EIC held real power by controlling finances and administration.
Disadvantages for Bengal
- Disastrous for the people:
- Neither EIC nor Nawab focused on good governance or public welfare.
- Administrative breakdown led to problems.
End of the Dual System
- Abolished by Warren Hastings in 1772 due to its inefficiencies.
Mysore’s Resistance to the East India Company (EIC)
The Rise of Haidar Ali (1761-1782)
- Weakened Mysore:After the Battle of Talikota (1565), Mysore emerged as a small kingdom under the Wodeyars. By the mid-18th century, it faced financial and political weakness due to repeated Maratha and Nizam incursions.
- Haidar Ali’s Rise:A soldier who rose to become Mysore’s de facto ruler in 1761. He possessed strong military skills and diplomatic acumen.
- Modernization Efforts:
- Established an arms factory with French help to counter European weaponry.
- Introduced Western training methods for his army.
- Used diplomacy to outmaneuver opponents.
First Anglo-Mysore War (1767-1769)
- Context:EIC’s expansion in Bengal threatened Mysore’s trade and political influence.
- Alliances:EIC with the Nizam, Haidar Ali with the Marathas (later, the Nizam).
- Outcome:Inconclusive war; Treaty of Madras (1769) with prisoner exchange and no territorial gains.
Second Anglo-Mysore War (1780-1784)
- Causes:
- EIC viewed Haidar Ali’s French alliance as a threat.
- Haidar Ali felt betrayed by the EIC for not aiding him against the Marathas.
- Alliances:Haidar Ali with the Marathas and the Nizam (switched sides later).
- Major Battles:
- Haidar Ali captured Arcot and defeated Colonel Baillie’s British army (1781).
- British victories at Porto Novo (1781) and against Braithwaite (1782).
- Treaty of Mangalore (1784):Mutual restoration of conquered territories.
Tipu Sultan Takes Over (1782-1799)
- Haidar Ali’s death in 1782 led his son, Tipu Sultan, to continue his father’s policies of modernization and resistance to the EIC.
Third Anglo-Mysore War (1790-1792)
- Cause:Dispute between Mysore and Travancore (a British ally) over territory.
- Course of War:
- Tipu defeated the British under General Meadows (1790).
- British captured Bangalore and besieged Seringapatam (Tipu’s capital) twice.
- Treaty of Seringapatam (1792):Harsh terms for Mysore:
- Loss of nearly half its territory to the British, Marathas, and the Nizam.
- Heavy war indemnity of 3 crore rupees.
- Tipu’s sons held hostage until payment completed.
Fourth Anglo-Mysore War (1799)
- Causes:
- Tipu’s refusal to accept British dominance and attempts to expand his power.
- Lord Wellesley’s desire to eliminate Tipu as a threat.
- Alliances:EIC with the Marathas and the Nizam.
- Outcome:British victory at Seringapatam (1799).
- Consequences:
- Tipu Sultan’s death and end of Mysore as an independent kingdom.
- British imposition of a puppet ruler and the Subsidiary Alliance system.
Significance of the Anglo- Mysore Wars
- Weakened Mysore’s power and paved the way for eventual British dominance in South India.
- Highlighted the strategic importance of the Mysore region for controlling South Indian trade routes.
- Established a pattern of alliances and betrayals among Indian powers and the EIC.
Tipu Sultan: A Complex Legacy
Military Leader and Modernizer
- Son of Haidar Ali, rose to power in 1782.
- Known as the “Tiger of Mysore” for his military prowess.
- Modernized his army with European influence and introduced rocket technology.
- Patron of science and technology, interested in naval development.
Administration and Diplomacy
- Supported French revolutionaries and adopted some of their ideals (Jacobin Club).
- Promoted economic development, including sericulture.
- Viewed by some as a tolerant ruler, by others as a bigot.
- Suppressed rebellions from both Hindus and Muslims.
- Maintained some Hindu temples within his kingdom.
Controversial Legacy
- British portrayed him as a fanatic, a view challenged by modern historians.
- Complexities in religious policies: protected some temples, demolished others.
- Ruled during a time of warfare and political instability.
Mysore After Tipu
- British divided Mysore’s territory among themselves, Marathas, and the Nizam.
- Re-established the Wodeyar dynasty under British control (Subsidiary Alliance).
- Mysore briefly taken over by the British in 1831 due to misrule, then restored in 1881.
The Anglo-Maratha Wars for Supremacy
Rise of the Marathas
- Mughal decline created an opportunity for the Marathas to expand their power.
- Controlled vast territories and collected tributes beyond their direct rule.
- Aimed to become rulers of North India in the mid-18th century.
- Maratha Confederacy:
- Formed by Peshwa Bajirao I to manage Maratha expansion.
- Key Maratha families: Gaekwad, Bhonsle, Holkar, Sindhia, Peshwa.
- Weakened after the Third Battle of Panipat (1761) and death of Madhavrao I (1772).
Entry of the English
- Late 18th-Early 19th century: Three Anglo-Maratha Wars for supremacy.
- Causes:
- English ambition to expand control.
- Internal divisions within the Marathas.
- English desire to replicate Bengal’s governance model in Bombay.
First Anglo-Maratha War (1775-1782)
- Background:
- Power struggle following Madhavrao I’s death (1772).
- Raghunathrao sought English aid against the Peshwa regency.
- Treaty of Surat (1775): Raghunathrao ceded Salsette, Bassein to the English.
- Treaty of Purandhar (1776): Peshwa regency renounced Raghunathrao.
- Course of War:
- Initial Maratha victories under Mahadji Shinde.
- Treaty of Wadgaon (1779): English surrendered after being surrounded.
- Renewed conflict: English captured key Maratha territories.
- Treaty of Salbai (1782):
- Ended the first phase of the war.
- Key points:
- Salsette remained with the English.
- Most conquered territories returned to the Marathas.
- Raghunathrao received a pension.
- 20-year peace agreement.
Second Anglo-Maratha War (1803-1805)
Seeds of Conflict
- Similar to the first war, internal Maratha divisions provided an opportunity for the British.
- Peshwa Madhavrao Narayan’s suicide (1795) led to Bajirao II becoming Peshwa.
- Tension between Bajirao II and Nana Phadnavis (chief minister) created instability.
- Nana Phadnavis’ death in 1800 further weakened Maratha unity.
Course of War
- 1801: Peshwa Bajirao II murdered Jaswantrao Holkar’s brother, sparking conflict.
- Holkar defeated Peshwa and Scindia at Hadapsar (1802), installing Vinayakrao as Peshwa.
- Fearing Holkar, Bajirao II signed the Treaty of Bassein with the British (1802).
Treaty of Bassein (1802): A Turning Point
- Key terms for the Peshwa:
- Accept a British subsidiary force stationed in his territory.
- Cede territories to the British.
- Surrender control over Surat city.
- Give up claims on certain taxes.
- Accept British arbitration in disputes.
- Restrict foreign relations with European powers.
- Significance:
- Gave the British a strategic foothold in Maratha territory.
- Weakened Maratha independence by placing the Peshwa under British control.
- Paved the way for further British expansion in India.
Maratha Resistance and British Victory
- Scindia and Bhonsle opposed the treaty and fought the British.
- Defeated by British forces under Arthur Wellesley (later Duke of Wellington).
- 1803-1804: Separate subsidiary treaties forced upon Scindia, Bhonsle, and Holkar.
- Marathas were reduced to vassals of the British and isolated from each other.
Impact of the Treaty of Bassein
- Though controversial, the treaty significantly benefited the British.
- Increased British military presence in central India.
- Set the stage for eventual Maratha defeat and British dominance.
Third Anglo-Maratha War (1817-1819)
Causes
- British Expansion:Lord Hastings sought to expand British control in India.
- Pindari Raids:Maratha mercenaries (Pindaris) raided British territories, creating tension.
- Treaty of Bassein:Angered other Maratha chiefs who saw it as a loss of independence.
- Maratha Unity:A temporary alliance formed against the British threat.
Course of War
- The Marathas launched attacks against British residencies in Pune and Nagpur.
- However, the Marathas were weakened by internal issues:
- Poor administration and leadership.
- Lack of unity among Maratha states.
- The British responded swiftly and decisively, defeating the Peshwa, Bhonsle, and Holkar.
Results
- Key Treaties:
- Treaty of Poona (1817) with the Peshwa.
- Treaty of Gwalior (1817) with Scindia.
- Treaty of Mandasor (1818) with Holkar.
- Peshwa surrendered in 1818, ending the Maratha confederacy.
- Peshwaship abolished and Bajirao II became a British pensioner.
- A small state of Satara established under a descendant of Shivaji.
Significance
- Marked the end of Maratha power and established British dominance in India.
Why the Marathas Lost to the British
The Marathas’ defeat stemmed from several factors contributing to their decline:
- Ineffective Leadership:Later Maratha leaders lacked vision and unity compared to British officials like Elphinstone and Wellesley.
- Flawed State Structure:The Maratha state lacked a strong national identity and focus on social reforms unlike the British.
- Loose Political Confederacy:Internal rivalries and semi-independent Maratha chiefs weakened their collective power.
- Inferior Military:The Marathas lagged behind in military organization, weaponry, and discipline compared to the British.
- Unstable Economy:The Maratha leadership failed to develop a sound economic system to support their military and infrastructure.
- British Diplomatic Superiority:The British skillfully exploited Maratha disunity through alliances and a strong spy network.
- Outdated Social Structure:The Marathas clung to traditional social hierarchies, hindering national unity.
In essence, the Marathas’ weaknesses left them vulnerable to a more organized and strategically superior British force.
Conquest of Sindh by the British (Early 19th Century)
British Interest in Sindh
- Early 19th century: British interest in Sindh grew due to existing trade privileges granted by the Mughals.
Rise of Talpur Amirs
- 18th century: Talpuras, a Baluch tribe, rose to power in Sindh.
- Established control by 1783 under Mir Fath Ali Khan.
- Divided Sindh among brothers (Amirs) after his death (1800).
Early British Interactions
- 1758: British factory built at Thatta under Kallora rule.
- 1761: Kallora ruler confirmed trade privileges and excluded other Europeans.
- 1775: Tensions rose under a new ruler, leading to the closure of the British factory.
Napoleon and the “Great Game”
- Late 18th century: Fear of a Napoleon-Tipu Sultan alliance against India.
- 1799: Negotiations with Mir Fath Ali Khan to counter the perceived threat (unsuccessful).
- 1807: Treaty of “Eternal Friendship” signed under Lord Minto’s administration.
- Aimed to create a barrier between Russia and British India.
- Key points:
- Excluded French from Sindh.
- Exchanged diplomatic agents.
Treaty of 1832 (Bentinck Era)
- Provisions:
- Free passage on the Indus for trade (excluding warships and war materials).
- No British settlements in Sindh (travelers needed passports).
- Amirs to cooperate with Jodhpur to control bandits.
- Renewed old treaties.
Lord Auckland and Escalation
- 1836: Lord Auckland saw Sindh as strategic for Afghan affairs.
- 1838: New treaty imposed after Ranjit Singh captured a Sindhi town.
- Offered protection in exchange for British troops stationed in the capital (at Amir’s expense).
- Established a British resident with unrestricted movement.
- Tripartite Treaty of 1838:
- Britain, Ranjit Singh, and Shah Shuja agreed on Afghan policy.
- Shah Shuja surrendered claims on Sindh for British support.
Subsidiary Alliance (1839)
- British pressured Amirs to accept a subsidiary alliance.
- Key terms:
- British troops stationed at Shikarpur and Bukkar.
- Annual payment of Rs. 3 lakh for troop maintenance.
- No foreign negotiations without British consent.
- Provide supplies and abolish tolls on the Indus.
- Assist in the Afghan War (1839-1842).
Capitulation and Annexation (1843)
- Amirs accused of disloyalty and hostility after the Afghan War.
- Forced to cede territories and accept further restrictions.
- Uprising led by the Amirs crushed by Charles Napier.
- Sindh annexed to the British Empire in 1843 under Governor-General Ellenborough.
Criticisms
- Historians condemn the conquest as a case of manufactured justifications.
- Seen as a power grab to compensate for British failures in Afghanistan.
Conquest of Punjab by the British
Consolidation of Sikh Power
- After Guru Gobind Singh’s death, Sikhs faced Mughal persecution and internal divisions.
- In 1721, Bhai Mani Singh helped reunite the Sikhs.
- Kapur Singh Faizullapuria formed the Dal Khalsa in 1784, uniting Sikhs politically and militarily.
- The weakness of the Mughals and Afghan invasions created opportunities for the Sikhs.
- Sikhs consolidated power through Misls, independent military groups with democratic structures.
- By the 18th century, numerous Misls ruled Punjab under Sikh chieftains.
Rise of Ranjit Singh
- Ranjit Singh, born in 1780, belonged to the Sukerchakiya Misl.
- He displayed political acumen from a young age.
- By the late 18th century, many Misls weakened, while Afghanistan faced internal struggles.
- Ranjit Singh used this instability to expand his territory through military conquest.
- He captured Lahore (political capital) and Amritsar (religious capital) by 1805.
- He maintained good relations with Dogras and Nepalese, incorporating them into his army.
Ranjit Singh and the British
- Fearing a Franco-Russian invasion, the British sent a mission to Lahore in 1807.
- Negotiations failed as Ranjit Singh wanted British neutrality in the Sikh-Afghan conflict and control of all Punjab, including territories south of the Sutlej River.
- In 1809, Ranjit Singh signed the Treaty of Amritsar, recognizing the Sutlej as the boundary between his kingdom and British India.
- He then focused on expanding westward, capturing Multan (1818), Kashmir (1819), and Peshawar (1834).
- In 1838, he signed the Tripartite Treaty with the British but refused them passage through his land to attack Afghanistan.
- Ranjit Singh’s reign (1809-1839) was marked by cautious diplomacy due to British power.
Punjab After Ranjit Singh
- After Ranjit Singh’s death in 1839, the Sikh empire began to decline.
- His successor, Kharak Singh, was weak, and court factions emerged.
- Kharak Singh and his son Nau Nihal Singh died within a year, creating chaos.
- The Sikh army, once strong, was weakened by internal conflicts, indiscipline, and unpaid troops.
- The Lahore government allowed British troops passage through Punjab during their Afghan campaign (1838-1842), disrupting the region.
Power Struggles and British Intervention
- A series of assassinations and power struggles between various groups followed.
- Rani Jindan, regent for the young Maharaja Daleep Singh, and her allies jockeyed for control.
- The Sikh army became increasingly dissatisfied with the Lahore government.
- British intervention grew as they saw an opportunity to exploit the instability.
The Anglo-Sikh Wars (1845-1849)
First Anglo-Sikh War (1845-1846)
- Causes:
- Instability in Lahore after Ranjit Singh’s death (power struggle between Lahore court and the Sikh army).
- Sikh suspicion of British expansionism (annexation of Gwalior, Sindh, and Afghan campaign).
- British troop build-up near the Sikh border.
- Course of the War:
- December 1845: War begins with Sikh army crossing the Sutlej.
- Sikhs outnumbered British but suffered defeats due to treachery (Lal Singh and Teja Singh).
- Key Battles: Mudki, Ferozeshah, Buddelwal, Aliwal, Sobraon (British victories).
- February 1846: Lahore falls to British without resistance.
- Treaty of Lahore (March 1846):
- Heavy war indemnity for Sikhs.
- Jalandhar Doab annexed by British.
- British resident established in Lahore.
- Sikh army reduced in size.
- Kashmir sold to Gulab Singh (separate treaty).
- Daleep Singh remains ruler under Rani Jindan (regent) and Lal Singh (wazir).
Treaty of Bhairowal (December 1846):
- Sikhs dissatisfied with Lahore Treaty, particularly Kashmir’s loss.
- Rani Jindan removed as regent, replaced by a British-controlled council.
Second Anglo-Sikh War (1848-1849):
- Causes:
- Humiliation of Sikh defeat and treaty terms.
- Mistreatment of Rani Jindan.
- Multan governor’s revolt against British revenue demands.
- Sher Singh joining the revolt, triggering a wider uprising.
- Lord Dalhousie’s expansionist ambitions.
- Course of the War:
- British forces led by Lord Dalhousie.
- Key Battles: Ramnagar, Chillianwala, Gujarat (British victories).
- February 1849: Sikh surrender at Rawalpindi.
- Result:
- Annexation of Punjab.
- Sikh army and Sher Singh surrender.
- Dalhousie promoted for his “services.”
- Three-member board (Lawrence brothers and Charles Mansel) established to govern Punjab (later replaced by a chief commissioner).
Significance:
- Despite initial animosity, the wars fostered a sense of mutual respect between Sikhs and British for their fighting skills.
- Sikhs later served loyally in the British army, including the 1857 Sepoy Mutiny.
British Expansion Through Administrative Policy (1757-1857)
Methods of Expansion:
- Annexation by Conquest:Covered previously.
- Annexation by Diplomacy and Administration:This section explores three key policies.
- Ring Fence Policy (Warren Hastings):
- Goal:Create buffer zones to protect British territories.
- Method:Ally with neighboring states and offer military support in exchange for financial contributions.
- Example:Awadh paid to defend against Afghan invaders and Marathas.
- Subsidiary Alliance (Lord Wellesley):
- Goal:Establish British control over Indian states without direct conquest.
- Key Features:
- Indian ruler stations British troops within their territory (financed by the ruler).
- British Resident stationed at the Indian court.
- Indian ruler cannot employ Europeans without British approval.
- Indian ruler cannot wage war or negotiate with other states independently.
- British offer military protection from external threats.
- Benefits for British:
- Strategic troop placement.
- Weakened Indian militaries.
- Increased revenue from troop maintenance payments.
- Control over Indian foreign policy.
- Drawbacks for Indian states:
- Loss of independence.
- Financial burden of maintaining British troops.
- Limited ability to defend themselves.
- Vulnerability to British interference in internal affairs.
- Evolution:
- Started with offering military aid.
- Progressed to demanding territory for troop maintenance.
- Ended with potential annexation for non-payment.
- States Accepting Alliance:
- Hyderabad, Mysore, Tanjore, Awadh, Peshwa, Bhonsle Raja of Berar, Scindia, Rajput states, Holkars.
- Doctrine of Lapse (Lord Dalhousie):
- Claim:An Indian ruler without a natural heir could not adopt a successor; the state “lapsed” to the British.
- Justification (disputed):Based on Hindu law and custom (though unclear).
- Application:
- Dalhousie enthusiastically applied the doctrine, annexing several states.
- Most significant annexations: Satara, Jhansi, Nagpur.
- Criticisms:
- Doctrine potentially misused for expansion.
- Ignored the legitimacy of adopted heirs.
- Increased resentment among Indian rulers.
Impact of Administrative Policies:
- Gradual expansion of British control across India.
- Weakening of Indian states through financial burdens and military limitations.
- Increased British influence in internal affairs.
- Seeds of discontent sown among Indian rulers (played a role in the 1857 Sepoy Mutiny).
Additional Notes:
- Annexation of Awadh (1856):
- Justified by Dalhousie due to alleged misrule.
- Seen as a harsh political move that contributed to the 1857 Sepoy Mutiny.
British India’s Relations with Neighboring Countries
Anglo-Bhutanese Relations
- British Occupation of Assam (1826):Increased interaction with Bhutan.
- Bhutanese Raids and Treaty (1863-1864):
- Bhutanese raided Bengal and Assam.
- British forced to surrender passes to Assam through a harsh treaty.
- British Annexation and Subsidy (1865):
- British annexed the surrendered passes.
- Bhutan ceded land in exchange for an annual subsidy.
- Annexed land became productive with tea plantations.
Anglo-Nepalese Relations
- Gorkha Expansion (1760s-1800s):
- Gorkhas took control of Nepal and expanded southward.
- British annexed Gorakhpur (1801), bordering Nepal.
- Anglo-Nepalese War (1813-1816):
- Caused by Gorkha capture of Butwal and Sheoraj.
- Ended with Treaty of Sagauli (1816) favoring the British.
- Treaty of Sagauli (1816):
- Nepal accepted a British resident.
- Ceded Garhwal, Kumaon districts and abandoned claims to Terai.
- Withdrew from Sikkim.
- Benefits for British:
- Extended empire to the Himalayas.
- Improved trade with Central Asia.
- Gained hill stations (Shimla, Mussoorie, Nainital).
- Gorkhas recruited into the British Indian Army.
Anglo-Burmese Relations
- Burmese Expansion and British Interests:
- Early 19th century, Burma sought westward expansion.
- British desired Burmese resources, markets, and to counter French influence.
- Three Anglo-Burmese Wars (19th Century):Resulted in Burma’s annexation (1885).
First Burma War (1824-1826):
- Caused by:
- Burmese expansion into Arakan, Manipur, threatening Assam.
- Ill-defined border leading to friction.
- Treaty of Yandabo (1826):
- Burma paid war compensation (1 crore rupees).
- Ceded Arakan and Tenasserim provinces.
- Abandoned claims on Assam, Cachar, Jaintia.
- Recognized Manipur’s independence.
- Agreed to a commercial treaty and British resident in Ava.
Second Burma War (1852):
- Caused by:
- British desire for Burmese resources and market access.
- Outcome: British occupied Pegu (remaining coastal province).
Third Burma War (1885):
- Caused by:
- Anti-British King Thibaw and French influence in Burma.
- British commercial grievances and fines.
- Outcome: British annexed Upper Burma.
- Led to Burmese guerrilla resistance and later nationalist movements.
- Burma separated from India (1935) and gained independence (1948).
Anglo-Tibetan Relations
Background:
- Tibet ruled by Buddhist monks (lamas) under loose Chinese control.
- British attempts at friendly relations had failed.
- British concerns:
- Growing Russian influence in Lhasa.
- Rumors of Russian arms in Tibet.
British Expedition (1904):
- Viceroy Curzon sent a military mission (led by Younghusband) to pressure Tibet.
- Tibetans refused negotiations and offered non-violent resistance.
- Younghusband forced his way to Lhasa (August 1904), Dalai Lama fled.
Treaty of Lhasa (1904):
- Harsh terms dictated by Younghusband:
- Indemnity of 75 lakh rupees.
- British occupation of Chumbi Valley for 75 years.
- Recognition of Sikkim’s frontier.
- Trade marts opened in Tibetan towns.
- Tibet restricted foreign concessions and gave Britain some control over foreign affairs.
- Treaty revised later:
- Indemnity reduced to 25 lakh rupees.
- Chumbi Valley evacuated after 3 years (actually in 1908).
Significance:
- China ultimately benefitted:
- Anglo-Russian convention (1907) limited outside influence in Tibet.
- British achieved:
- Countering Russian influence (though temporary).
Anglo-Afghan Relations
Context:
- Early 19th century:
- Increased Russian influence in Persia worried the British.
- British sought a “scientific frontier” for India’s defense.
- Desire for a friendly Afghanistan.
Forward Policy (1830s):
- Governor-General Auckland advocated for an active defense strategy.
- Goals:
- Secure borders through treaties or annexation.
- Install a friendly ruler in Afghanistan.
First Anglo-Afghan War (1839-1842):
- Dethroning Dost Mohammed and installing Shah Shuja failed.
- Afghan rebellion forced British retreat.
- British defeat:
- Costly war (1.5 crore rupees, 20,000 casualties).
- Reinforced Afghan independence sentiment.
Masterly Inactivity (1860s):
- Viceroy John Lawrence adopted a cautious approach.
- Policy:
- Non-interference in Afghan internal affairs.
- Maintain peace on the frontier.
Proud Reserve (1870s):
- Viceroy Lytton reversed the previous policy.
- Sought to define clear borders and influence spheres.
Second Anglo-Afghan War (1878-1880):
- Lytton’s forceful diplomacy alienated Sher Ali Khan (Afghan ruler).
- British invasion followed by Treaty of Gandamak (1879).
- Popular uprising forced British back into war.
- Abdur Rahman Khan became new Amir.
- British abandoned plans to dismember Afghanistan.
Aftermath:
- Afghanistan remained a buffer state between British India and Russia.
- Afghans regained full independence after World War I (1919).
British India and the North-West Frontier
British Expansion:
- Conquest of Sindh (1843) and Punjab (1849) brought them to the border with Afghanistan.
Tribal Control:
- Faced independent Baluch and Pathan tribes with nominal Afghan suzerainty.
Durand Line (1893):
- Defined Afghan and British territories.
- Aimed to maintain peace but led to tribal uprisings.
Curzon’s Policies (1899-1905):
- Withdrew troops from advanced posts.
- Replaced them with trained tribal levies led by British officers.
- Encouraged peace among tribes.
- Established North-West Frontier Province (NWFP) under central control.
Outcome:
- Curzon’s policies brought temporary peace to the region.
- NWFP became a Governor’s province in 1932 (now part of Pakistan).