SOUTH ASIAN HISTORY

Pages from the history of the Indian sub-continent: British Rule in India

Pressures of Loyalism during British Rule

Part One: Loyalist Agents in the Indian Aristocracy and the Early Congress

As has been noted by several historians of British-ruled India, the numerical presence of the British in colonized India was never very significant. Yet, the British were able to maintain a vast and stable empire in the Indian subcontinent for almost two centuries. They were able to recklessly exploit India's natural resources and drain the wealth of it's citizenry through the imposition of excessive and unreasonable taxes - all without unmanageable challenges to their political authority during much of their debilitating reign.

Although there is no doubt that physical violence (including torture) were important elements of British domination in India, equally important were the successes of political strategies that took full advantage of rivalries amongst native rulers and cynically exploited divisions arising from caste, religion, class and other sectarian loyalties. Not only were the British able to garner the loyalty or acquiescence of the Indian Maharajas and other elements of the decadent feudal aristocracy, they were also able to command the support of influential sections of the British-educated new urban intelligentsia whose loyalty to the colonial empire remained unquestioned even as nationalist feelings and nationalist currents emerged with greater or lesser intensity after the defeat of 1858. Money-lenders and the landed gentry were particularly reliable allies of the British, and the new industrial class, though critical of British policies, was invariably constrained by it's conservatism in opposing British rule.

Thus, loyalism became a powerful political trend in British India that either countered nationalist forces outright, or attempted to diffuse their impact and efficacy through calls for political moderation, non-violence and tactical restraint. Loyalist forces made frequent and fervent appeals to the Indian masses to be patient with the British, to be content with the slow pace of political reforms, and to be grateful for minor concessions concerning self-rule. Those who demanded a more radical and confrontationist approach with the British (such as Tilak) were branded as "extremists" and dismissed as unrealistic or utopian radicals.

Rooted amongst sections of the Indian elite that feared the power of the restive masses, loyalism was not only a strong political force in Indian territories directly ruled by the British, but also had a profound impact on Princely India. Recognizing their importance, British administrators feted loyalist elements, rewarding them in accordance with their contribution to the stability of the Raj. In the decades that followed the 1857 uprising, loyalism showed up in a variety of forms (moderate or extreme), and the most anti-national of the loyalist tendencies served as a bulwark against all attempts at overthrowing or even diluting British authority in India. Not only did such elements collaborate dutifully in facilitating the sustained transfer of wealth from India to England, in their aggressively loyalist propaganda, they matched or even outdid colonial attacks on nationalist currents, spreading disinformation against even those that were politically quite moderate, and essentially reconciled to alien rule.

An archetype of such loyalist agents was Sir Salar Jung, (b, 1829, Prime Minister of the Princely State of Hyderabad in 1853), who wrote and spoke of the 1857 Mutiny with great hatred, and successfully employed Arab mercenaries on behalf of the British Resident, Colonel Davidson, in fending off mutineers in the Deccan kingdom. Leaders of the mutiny were shot dead or publicly executed. Local residents who attempted to plead on behalf of the mutinous soldiers were dispersed with canon fire.

Like elsewhere in the country, the 1857 rebellion enjoyed considerable popular appeal in the Nizam's kingdom, and in Hyderabad, there was a clamor for war against the British. In one of his briefs in praise of British General Thornhill, Salar Jung acknowledged that Hyderabad was seeped in disaffection with the British, and seeing the grave danger to British rule, acted quickly to fend off the challenges to British colonial presence. His timely and brutal actions in suppressing the mutineers was of crucial import and was duly acknowledged by Sir Richard Temple who described as "priceless", his services to the British Government.

But Salar Jung was not alone in his opposition to the 1857 rebellion, which essentially took on the character of India's first War of Independence. When the troops of Indore and Mhow rebelled and joined the 1857 war against the British, the Holkar Raja felt compelled to apologize to the British for the behaviour of the troops under his command, and sought to affirm his loyalty to the British in no uncertain terms. Troops in Tonk, Kota, Gwalior, Bhopal and Bharatpur also rebelled, but their rulers remained staunchly loyal to British interests.

Even former-rulers such as Nagpur's Rani Bakabai (whose Bhosle royal clan had been earlier humiliated by the British) nevertheless threatened potential mutineers in her territory with dire consequences. Following Nagpur's annexation, the British had confiscated almost the entire Bhosle treasury, transferring 136 bags of precious metals and jewels, and other cultural valuables, to British vaults. Palace animals were auctioned off, and much of the remaining personal jewelry of the Bhosle queens was auctioned off in Calcutta. However, Rani Bakabai and other senior royals were provided a pension, and this proved sufficient to buy their loyalty.

Inspired by the rebellions in other cities - (such as at Meerut, Delhi, Lucknow, Kanpur, Sagar and Jhansi), an iregular unit at Takli near Nagpur had rebelled, but other units remained passive allowing the British to overcome the rebellion. Dildar Khan, Inayatulla Khan, Vilayat Khan and Nawab Kadar Khan of the irregular cavalry were tried and executed.

Although the masses of Nagpur were generally sympathetic to those who rebelled, the influence of the pro-British royals remained strong, and it was the pro-colonial orientation of many such Indian rulers that allowed the British to regain their confidence and regroup, and ultimately recover the territories they lost in 1857.

But even as the first Indian War of Independence came to a tragic and bitter end, the Princely States that had sided with the British, (or remained neutral) were to discover that the British were no less capable of undermining them. New and more aggressively loyalist agents were employed to weaken the independence and financial viability of the Princely States.

For instance, Sir T. Madhav Rao, (British appointed administrator of the state of Baroda) passed laws preventing the state from manufacturing or purchasing arms at will. He also pushed through laws increasing taxes on commodities of daily public use such as salt, and providing British manufacturers monopoly distribution rights. Additionally, Madhav Rao signed decrees requiring sizeable payments to the British for services that the state had no need of. Nepotism and corruption thrived in the Madhav Rao administration, and locals who may have objected to (or resisted) laws and decrees that were inimical to the economic interests of the state were kept out. Loyalist like Madhav Rao thus became instrumental in driving the people of the state into utter helplessness and dire poverty.

Other loyalists were not as blatant, and attempted to couch their collaboration with the British administrators in a more reformist light. Sir Syed Ahmed (b. 1817) appointed a Member of the Public Service Commission by Lord Dufferin saw the British presence in India as "beneficial to the scientific modernization of the country", and saw British presence in the subcontinent as a "liberalizing" factor.

(Many others echoed such views, discounting the possibility that such advances could have very well been made by the Indian people themselves, under a political dispensation of their own choosing, and without the enormous economic drain caused by colonial rule. It is notable that countries such as Thailand, South Korea and Japan who escaped European colonization in Asia were able to adopt modern education systems and modern technology at a much faster pace than India).

In writing about the "Causes of the Indian Revolt of 1857", Syed Ahmed wrote that the people of India had "misunderstood" the intentions of the British, and failed to comprehend the "good points" of the British rulers. When the Indian National Congress was launched with it's rather limited goals of ensuring greater representation for Indians in the colonial administration and gradual transformation towards home-rule within the empire, Syed Ahmed opposed the movement, and in an 1887 speech to the Mahomeddan Educational Conference, discouraged Indian Muslims from joining the Congress. Although he projected himself as a liberal and secular reformer, he opposed common electorates for all Indians, arguing for separate electorates and compartmental elections for Muslims and other non-Hindus. Though it appears from his speeches that his views were not motivated by consciously divisive or communal intent, the effects of his propagandizing sowed the seeds for the elaboration and development of the highly pernicious two-nation theory, and ultimately to the bloody partition of the Indian subcontinent. Only late in life, did he begin to realize that the British colonial rulers were incapable of treating Indians with equality. It was then that he came to recognize the value of a body such as the Congress and began to express serious doubts and reservations about the role of the British in India. But by then the damage had been done - in his public life, Syed Ahmed (like many others) had served British interests only too well.

Like Sir Ahmed, Sir Ali Imam (b. 1869 in an aristocratic Patna family), Sir Muhammad Shafi (b. 1869 in an extremely wealthy landed family with holdings throughout Punjab) and Rahimatulla Mohammed Sayani (b.1847) were other prominent loyalists who played an important propagandist role in defending the empire. Lauded for his great services to the 'Raj' by Lord Harding, Ali Imam (who eventually became a judge in the Patna High Court) tried to obscure the contradictions between the Indian masses and the colonial administration by projecting Indian nationalism as being entirely compatible with loyalty to the British Sovereign and pride in the British Empire.

Muhammad Shafi attempted to argue that British and Indian interests were "similiar". Even as Shafi championed the cause of reforms in the British administration of India, he emphasized "India's fidelity to the Empire" adding that the empire was "Our Common Heritage". "To my own countrymen I appeal with equal earnestness to recognize that our British fellow-subjects in India have as permanent an interest in her future well-being as ourselves, and are entitled to play, a leading part in her constitutional development. Let us realize that in their co-operation and good-will for India's regeneration lies our sure and certain success along the path of constitutional development. We too, should cast aside all distrust and, imbued with a feeling of mutual confidence, meet the British elements in this country more than half way. In union lies strength and with Indo-British union there is no height to which India may not rise." (Quoted from the concluding portion of a series of articles published in the Civil and Military Gazette, Lahore - Eminent Mussalmans, p222)

The trend towards loyalism culminated in the persona of the Aga Khan (Sir Sultan Mhd. Shah, b. 1875, Karachi) who aggressively championed allegiance to the British in all it's war efforts (whether in Europe, South Africa or elsewhere), even stating that "If they will only give me the opportunity, I will shed my last drop of blood for the British Empire".

Continuing in the vein of Sir Syed Ahmed, the Aga Khan developed Muslim sectarian and separatist ideas much further by calling for the creation of the All India Muslim League as a political counter-weight and foil to the Congress. He also argued for the establishment of a University that would cater exclusively to the nation's Muslims. In deepening divisions between India's Hindus and Muslims, the Aga Khan could not have served the interests of the British Empire any better and was justly rewarded with great accolades in the British Press and royal circles.

However, not all eminent Muslims adopted a separatist approach. Badruddin Tyabji (b. 1844), who became President of the Indian National Congress in 1887 won the support of Indian industrialists when he argued against the abolition of import duties on cotton goods in 1879. A liberal reformer, he encouraged modern education for India's Muslims, and the lifting of Purdah for Muslim women when he became Secretary (and later President) of the Anjuman-i-Islam in Bombay in 1880 . In 1883, he campaigned to seek equal rank for Indians employed in British-run Indian administrative services.

Tyabji was succeeded by Sir Pherozeshah Mehta (b. 1845) who headed the Congress in 1889. Like Tyabji, Pherozeshah Mehta also fought for equality for Indians in the colonial administration, and resisted European domination of the Indian University system, taking up the cudgels against Lord Curzon (who had won the editorial backing of the pro-colonial Times of India in his attempts at furthering the British domination of the Indian education system). Yet, Pherozeshah Mehta also repeatedly expressed his opposition to more radical nationalism and strived hard to keep the Congress on a loyalist track. The election of Mohd. Sayani (who had previously stayed aloof from the Congress) as President in 1896 underlined the loyalist hold on the Congress.

Sayani had been an ardent admirer of the British, and criticized those who distrusted their motives and presence in India. In a passionate speech defending the British presence in India, he argued that "a more honest or steady nation does not exist under the sun than this English nation". At a time when India was reeling from famines induced by British policies in India, he defended British Rule, describing it as generally based on "law and sympathy", and having given India "peace". Sayani also harbored the illusion that English capital would modernize and industrialize India, and make Indians prosperous, but in fact, the Indian economy experienced zero growth in the first half of the 20th century, and the flow of capital from England to India was never more than a trickle. (Quotes taken from a speech delivered during discussion of the Financial Statement of 1898-99).

But throughout this period, it was Pherozeshah Mehta who became the main rallying point for loyalists in the Congress. Mehta led the charge in humiliating and isolating the more uncompromising nationalist currents. Most onerous was his diatribe against the young nationalist, Bal Gangadhar Tilak, whom he described as a dangerous "extremist". In his attacks against Tilak, Mehta won the endorsement of the Times of India (who saw in Tilak, a serious threat to the cult of loyalism, and assiduously campaigned for the Congress to remain on the loyalist track). In 1910, in a key speech to Congress cadres, Mehta affirmed the loyalty of the Congress to British rule . The British were naturally appreciative of Mehta's politics, and duly rewarded him with knighthood. Although Mehta's strong opposition to Tilak and Bipin Chandra Pal was not entirely popular within the Congress, the Congress remained generally wedded to the creed of loyalism, and only moderates such as Gokhale were able to find an influential voice within it.

Gokhale epitomized the Congress leaders that emerged between 1895 and 1920. Acutely aware of the economic devastation that colonial rule had brought to the nation, they nevertheless repeatedly expressed their fidelity to the British - struggling only for political reforms and greater self-government within the empire.

However, during the years of 1905-1908, there was an intense struggle for the soul of the Indian National Congress, with leaders like Tilak (and others such as Ajit Singh in Punjab and Chidambaram Pillay) fighting hard to intensify the struggle against British colonial domination.

Part Two: "Moderates" versus "Extremists" in the battle for "Swaraj" and "Swadeshi"

Related Articles

• The Revolutionary Upheaval of 1857

• British Education in India

• Key Landmarks in the Indian Freedom Struggle

• Records of the Ghadar Movement

• Shaheed Bhagat Singh

Also see sections on the Indian Freedom Struggle in:

• Adivasi Contributions to Indian Culture and Civilization

• History of Orissa: An introduction

References:

• Eminent Mussalmans (Neeraj Publishing House, Delhi, 1981 reprint, first edition - 1926)

• A History of the Indian Mutiny (Forrest)

• Eighteen Fifty Seven: Rajputana and Central India

• Imperialism/Colonialism in Modern Historical Writing in India (Holden Faber, Univ. of Pennsylvania)

• Sayaji Rao of Baroda (Fatehsinghrao Gaekwad, Bombay, Popular Prakashan)

• Biography of Sayaji Rao (S. Nihal Singh)

• Great Men of India (Anthology edited by Rushbrook Williams)

• Sir Pherozeshah Mehta (Homi Mody, Asian Publishing House)

• Speeches/Writings of Gopal Krishan Gokhale (Edited by Prof. D.G. Karve, D.V. Ambekar, Asian Publishing House)

Notes:

An example of how the British press feted Indian royals who had helped the British quell the 1857 rebellion is this excerpt from an 1875 story in the The Illustrated London News:

"Another great native Prince, whose portrait we engrave, is Jyajee Rao Scindia, Mahrajah of Gwalior. It has been observed on a former occasion, when speaking of the Maharajah Holkar of Indore, that these Maharatta potentates of Western India are now valuable allies of the British Government. Scindia was overthrown in the Sepoy War of 1858, by a rebellion headed by Tantia Tope and the Dowager Princess, Rani of Jhansi at the instigation of the Nana Sahib....."

Back to main index for South Asian History

(If you liked our site, or would like to help with the South Asian History project and help us expand our reach, please click here)

To send an e-mail, write to india.resource

@yahoo.com