People Power

1857 was a turning point in British colonial policy in India. It was an armed uprising against the East India Company which had steadily taken over huge swathes of territory, established its own army, legal systems and taxation, becoming what William Dalrymple called corporate raiders instead of corporate traders. The shock of the uprising set into motion an administrative system designed by the British Crown to never again allow the Indian people to rise up.

All decisions were to be made far away from India in a special section of the British Parliament, implemented with an iron hand by an appointed Viceroy and his administrative officers. Charles Wood, the Secretary of State for India in 1861, said: “All experience teaches us that where a dominant race rules another, the mildest form of government is a despotism.” Provincial autonomy was taken away by a strict centralization.

The Indian army was carefully reorganized to prevent future revolts. All top positions were held by the British. Monica Roy points out : ‘A fiction was created that Indians consisted of ‘martial’ and ‘non-martial’ classes.’ Thus, soldiers who had led the 1857 uprising were declared ‘non-martial’, while those who had assisted in the suppression of the Revolt, were declared to be ‘martial’ and recruited into the new army. Roy writes ‘Communal, caste, tribal and regional loyalties were encouraged among the soldiers so that the sentiment of nationalism would not grow among them.’ As Charles Wood put it: ‘If one regiment mutinies, I should like to have the next regiment so alien that it would be ready to fire into it.’

Using 52 percent of revenues, the army was also used by the British to fight their colonial wars in Africa and Asia as well as the two World Wars.  An elaborate civil service served British interests rather than Indian. Princely states, zamindars and landlords were supported in return for loyalty. A policy of divide and rule pitted one prince or province against the other, as well as sowing discord amongst classes, castes and religions, sometimes favouring Hindus and sometimes Muslims.

An educational system was developed to instill European values, but limited higher education. Confusingly, those who did acquire European manners and education were mocked as Babus.  Social reform was rolled back, spending least on education and health, encouraging backwardness and social fragmentation. Factory conditions were poor with low wages.  The press was suppressed as soon as it was realized journalists were fanning nationalism.

After 1857, a deliberate distance was maintained by the rulers from the local populations, whether at social gatherings, or the ‘Europeans only’ signs on train compartments and waiting rooms, parks, hotels and clubs, and shopping areas. Foreign relations were imposed that pitted India against its immediate neighbours, as well as global powers they wanted to contain. For the first time in its history, India had the defined borders of a single entity nation state, erasing the distinct identities of its many political riyasat states.         

However, all attempts to prevent nationalism and the desire for freedom failed. They failed because of the very structures imposed to curtail uprisings – European education, administrative and political systems, the printing press, and modern weaponry. The first rebellions around 1757, became mass movements by the 1920s, led by the very elite and educated classes they sought to suppress.

Post partition, both countries maintained the systems of the Raj by internalizing its rationale. Populations have been kept backward, education and health budgets remain low, administrative and legal authorities remain opaque and inaccessible, the press is restricted, taxes are primarily used to prop up administrative and security expenses and only the rich prosper. The ‘backward’ populations, disconnected by social distance from the ways of their rulers escaped the indoctrination, instead evolving organically and outside the state managed system. Over the years, accounts of migrants on home visits, and now the internet have enabled comparisons and created a context for their oppression.  

The rumblings of people power are once again becoming louder, as social media educated youth by pass the state-imposed restrictions on information and communication. It remains to be seen if this evolves into statehood or chaos.

 

Durriya Kazi

February 10, 2024

Karachi

durriyakazi1918@gmail.com