In 1937, Burma was separated from British India as a separate colony. In 1947, British India was granted independence, after which the country was divided into two dominions - India and Pakistan. Bangladesh seceded from Pakistan in 1971.

History

Beginning in 1916, the British colonial authorities, represented by Viceroy Lord Chelmsford, announced concessions to Indian demands; these concessions included the appointment of Indians to officer positions in the army, the awarding of princes with awards and honorary titles, the abolition of the excise tax on cotton, which was extremely annoying to the Indians. In August 1917, the Secretary of State for India, Edwin Montagu, proclaimed the aim of Britain to be the progressive establishment in India of "responsible government as an integral part of the British Empire."

By the end of the war, most of the troops had been redeployed from India to Mesopotamia and Europe, causing concern to the local colonial authorities. Unrest became more frequent, and British intelligence noted many instances of cooperation with Germany. In 1915 it was accepted Defense Act of India, which in addition to press law, allowed the persecution of politically dangerous dissidents, in particular, the sending of journalists to prison without trial, and the exercise of censorship.

In 1917, a committee chaired by British Judge Rowlett investigated the involvement of Germans and Russian Bolsheviks in outbreaks of violence in India. The conclusions of the commission were presented in July 1918, and were divided into three districts: Bengal, Bombay Presidency and Punjab. The committee recommended expanding the powers of the authorities in wartime, introducing three-judge courts without trial by jury, introducing government surveillance of suspects, and empowering local authorities to arrest and detain suspects for short periods without trial.

The end of the war also brought about economic changes. By the end of 1919, up to 1.5 million Indians participated in the war. Taxes rose and prices doubled between 1914 and 1920. Demobilization from the army exacerbated unemployment, and there were food riots in Bengal, Madras and Bombay.

The government decided to implement the recommendations of the Rowlett Committee in the form of two laws, however, when voting in the Imperial Legislative Council, all of its Indian MPs voted against. The British managed to pass a stripped-down version of the first bill, which allowed the authorities extrajudicial persecution, but only for a period of three years, and only against "anarchist and revolutionary movements." The second bill was completely rewritten as amendments to the Indian Penal Code. However, strong indignation broke out in India, which culminated in the Amritsar massacre, and brought Mahatma Gandhi's nationalists to the forefront.

In December 1919 was adopted Government of India Act. The imperial and provincial legislative councils were expanded, and the refuge of the executive power in the passage of unpopular laws in the form of an "official majority" was abolished.

Matters such as defense, criminal investigation, foreign affairs, communications, tax collection remained under the responsibility of the viceroy and the central government in New Delhi, while health care, land lease, local government were transferred to the provinces. Such measures made it easier for Indians to participate in the civil service, and to receive officer positions in the army.

Indian suffrage was expanded at the national level, but the number of Indians with the right to vote was only 10% of the adult male population, and many of them were illiterate. The British authorities engaged in manipulation; thus, more seats in the legislative councils were received by representatives of the villages, who were more sympathetic to the colonial authorities than the townspeople. Separate places were reserved for non-Brahmins, landowners, businessmen, college graduates. Under the principle of "community representation", seats were reserved separately for Muslims, Sikhs, Hindus, Indian Christians, Anglo-Indians, Europeans living in India, in the Imperial and Provincial Legislative Councils.

Also in early 1946, new elections were held in which the Congress won in 8 of the 11 provinces. Negotiations began between the INC and the Muslim League for the Partition of India. On August 16, 1946, the Muslims declared Direct Action Day demanding the creation of an Islamic national home in British India. The next day, clashes broke out between Hindus and Muslims in Calcutta and quickly spread throughout India. In September, a new government was appointed with Hindu Jawaharlal Nehru as prime minister.

Britain's Labor government has realized that the country, exhausted by the Second World War, no longer has the international support or the backing of local forces to further hold on to power over India, which is plunging into the abyss of intercommunal unrest. In early 1947, Britain announced its intention to withdraw its forces from India no later than June 1948.

As independence approached, clashes between Hindus and Muslims continued to escalate. The new Viceroy, Lord Mountbatten, proposed that a partition plan be drawn up. In June 1947, representatives of the Congress, Muslims, the untouchable community, and the Sikhs agreed to partition British India along religious lines. Areas with a predominantly Hindu and Sikh population went to the new India, with a predominantly Muslim population to a new country, Pakistan.

On 14 August 1947, the Dominion of Pakistan was established, with the leader of the Muslims appointed as Governor General. The next day, August 15, India was declared an independent state.

Organization

The part of the territory of the subcontinent, which was under the direct control of the British Crown (through the Governor-General of India), was called British India proper; it was divided into three Presidencies - Bombay, Madras and Bengal. But the bulk of the territory was represented by “native states” (eng. Native states), or “principalities” (eng. Princely states).

The total number of individual Indian principalities thus reached several hundred. British power in them was represented by residents, however, as of 1947, only 4 principalities had their own residents. All other principalities united around various regional divisions (agencies, residencies). Formally, the "native principalities" were considered independent, and were not ruled by the British, but by local Indian rulers, with British control over the army, foreign affairs and communications; especially significant rulers were supposed to have a cannon salute when visiting the capital of India. At the time of India's independence, there were 565 principalities.

In general, the system consisted of three main levels - the imperial government in London, the central government in Calcutta, and regional offices. In London, the Ministry of Indian Affairs was organized, and the Council of India, consisting of 15 people. A prerequisite for membership in the council was residence in India for at least ten years. On most current issues, the Secretary of State for India used to seek the advice of the council. From 1858 to 1947, 27 people served in this post.

The head of India was the governor-general in Calcutta, increasingly called the viceroy; this title emphasized his role as an intermediary and representative of the Crown to the formally sovereign Indian principalities.

Since 1861, in case the government of India needed new laws, Legislative Councils of 12 people were convened, half government officials ("official"), half Indians and local British ("unofficial"). The inclusion of Hindus in the Legislative Councils, including the Imperial Legislative Council in Calcutta, was a response to the sepoy rebellion, but large landowners, representatives of the local aristocracy, often appointed for their loyalty, were usually selected for this role. This principle was far from representation.

The core of British rule was the Indian Civil Service.

The 1857 uprising shook British rule but did not derail it. One of the consequences was the dissolution of the colonial troops, recruited from the Muslims and Brahmins of Audh and Agra, who became the core of the uprising, and the recruitment of new troops from the Sikhs and Balochs, who showed their loyalty at that time.

According to the 1861 census, the British population of India consisted of only 125,945 people, with 41,862 civilians accounting for 84,083 military.

Armed forces

The armed forces were an autonomous formation that had its own educational institutions for the training of officers. The rank and file for the most part consisted of Indians. The acquisition was carried out on a voluntary basis. The commanding positions were occupied by the British. Initially, they were under the control of the British East India Company, then they came under the control of the government of British India.

Famine and epidemics

During the period of direct rule of the crown, India was shaken by a series of outbreaks of famine and epidemics. During the Great Famine of 1876-1878, from 6.1 to 10.3 million people died, during the Indian Famine of 1899-1900, from 1.25 to 10 million people.

In 1820, a cholera pandemic swept through India, which began in Bengal, 10 thousand British soldiers died from it, and countless Indians. In the period 1817-1860, more than 15 million people died, in the period 1865-1917, about 23 million more.

In the middle of the 19th century, the Third Plague Pandemic began in China, which swept across all inhabited continents, killing 6 million people in India alone.

The Russian-born British physician Khavkin, who worked mainly in India, pioneered the development of vaccines for cholera and bubonic plague; in 1925, the Bombay Plague Laboratory was renamed the Khavkin Institute. In 1898, the Briton Ronald Ross, who worked in Calcutta, finally proved that mosquitoes are vectors of malaria. Mass vaccination against smallpox led to a decrease in mortality from this disease in India at the end of the 19th century.

Overall, despite famine and epidemics, the population of the subcontinent grew from 185 million in 1800 to 380 million in 1941.

Economic and technological changes

In the second half of the 19th century, India underwent significant changes associated with industrialization and close ties with Britain. Much of this change was prepared before the Sepoy Rebellion of 1857, but most of it took place after the Mutiny, and are usually associated with the direct rule of the Crown. The British organized the mass construction of railways, canals, bridges, laid telegraph lines. The main goal was the faster transport of raw materials, in particular cotton, to Bombay and other ports.

On the other hand, finished products produced by British industry were delivered to India.

Despite the growth of infrastructure, very few high-skilled jobs were created for the Indians. In 1920, India had the fourth largest railway network in the world with a history of 60 years; while only 10% of the senior positions in Indian Railways were occupied by Indians.

Technology has brought about changes in India's agricultural economy; increased production of raw materials exported to markets in other parts of the world. Many small farmers went bankrupt. The second half of the 19th century in India was marked by outbreaks of mass famine. Famine had happened in India many times before, but this time tens of millions died from it. Many researchers place the blame for it on the policies of the British colonial administration.

Taxes for the majority of the population were reduced. At 15% during the Mughal era, they reached 1% at the end of the colonial period.

Chapter

During both world wars, India supported the British war effort, but the growing resistance of the local population to the colonialists and the weakening of the mother country led to the collapse of English rule. The empire was unable to stop the campaign of civil disobedience launched in 1942 by Mahatma Gandhi.

The decision to grant independence to India leads to its division into two main states: the Hindu - the Indian Union (modern India), and the Muslim - the Dominion of Pakistan (the territory of modern Pakistan and Bangladesh). The core of the two states was respectively the Indian National Congress and the Muslim League, led by Jinnah.

The several hundred independent principalities that existed at the time of the conquest of India by the British were thus united into two states, and the various titles of their rulers were abolished. The division of the former colony led to the exchange of 15 million refugees, and the death of at least 500 thousand people. as a result of intercommunal violence.

Determining the identity of the former native principality of Jammu and Kashmir caused particular difficulties. The majority of the principality's population was Muslim, but its Maharaja, Hari Singh, insisted on independence. The result was a rebellion and war between India and Pakistan.

Literature

• Allan, J., T. Wolseley Haig, H. H. Dodwell. The Cambridge Shorter History of India(1934) 996 pp. online; at Google
• Bandhu, Deep Chand. History of Indian National Congress(2003) 405pp
• Bandyopadhyay, Sekhar (2004), From Plassey to Partition: A History of Modern India, Orient Longman. pp. xx, 548., ISBN 978-81-250-2596-2.
• Bayly, C. A. (1990) Indian Society and the Making of the British Empire (The New Cambridge History of India), Cambridge and London: Cambridge University Press. pp. 248, ISBN 978-0-521-38650-0.
• Brown, Judith M. (1994), Modern India: The Origins of an Asian Democracy, Oxford University Press. pp. xiii, 474, ISBN 978-0-19-873113-9.
• Bose, Sugata & Jalal, Ayesha (2003), Modern South Asia: History, Culture, Political Economy Routledge, ISBN 978-0-415-30787-1
• Chhabra, G. S. (2005), Advanced Study in the History of Modern India, vol. Volume III (1920-1947) (Revised ed.), New Delhi: Lotus Press, p. 2, ISBN 978-81-89093-08-2 ,
• Copland, Ian (2001) India 1885–1947: The Unmaking of an Empire (Seminar Studies in History Series), Harlow and London: Pearson Longmans. pp. 160, ISBN 978-0-582-38173-5
• Coupland, Reginald. India: A Re-Statement(Oxford University Press, 1945), evaluation of the Raj, emphasizing government. online edition
• Dodwell H.H., ed. The Cambridge History of India. Volume 6: The Indian Empire 1858–1918. With Chapters on the Development of Administration 1818–1858(1932) 660 pp. online edition; also published as vol 5 of the Cambridge History of the British Empire
• Gilmour, David. The British in India: A Social History of the Raj(2018); expanded edition of The Ruling Caste: Imperial Lives in the Victorian Raj(2007) Excerpt and text search
• Herbertson, A.J. and O.J.R. howarth. eds. The Oxford Survey Of The British Empire(6 vol 1914) online vol 2 on Asia pp. 1–328 on India
• James, Lawrence. Raj: The Making and Unmaking of British India (2000)
• Judd, Denis (2004) The Lion and the Tiger: The Rise and Fall of the British Raj, 1600–1947, Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press. pp. xiii, 280, ISBN 978-0-19-280358-0.
• Louis, William Roger, and Judith M. Brown, eds. The Oxford History of the British Empire(5 vol 1999–2001), with numerous articles on the Raj
• Low, D.A. (1993), Eclipse of Empire ISBN 978-0-521-45754-5 ,
• Ludden, David E. (2002), India And South Asia: A Short History Oxford: Oneworld, ISBN 978-1-85168-237-9
• Majumdar, Ramesh Chandra; Raychaudhuri, Hemchandra & Datta, Kalikinkar (1950), An advanced history of India
• Majumdar, R. C. ed. (1970). British paramountcy and Indian renaissance. (The history and culture of the Indian people) Bombay: Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan.
• Mansingh, Surjit The A to Z of India(2010), a concise historical encyclopaedia
• Marshall, P. J. (2001), The Cambridge Illustrated History of the British Empire, 400 pp., Cambridge and London: Cambridge University Press., ISBN 978-0-521-00254-7.
• Markovits, Claude (2004) A History of Modern India, 1480–1950, Anthem Press, ISBN 978-1-84331-004-4 ,
• Metcalf, Barbara D. & Metcalf, Thomas R. (2006), A Concise History of Modern India (Cambridge Concise Histories), Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press. pp. xxxiii, 372, ISBN 978-0-521-68225-1
• Moon, Penderel. The British Conquest and Dominion of India(2 vol. 1989) 1235pp; the fullest scholarly history of political and military events from a British top-down perspective;
• Panikkar, K. M. (1953). Asia and Western dominance, 1498-1945, by K.M. Panikkar. London: G. Allen and Unwin.
• Peers, Douglas M. (2006), India under Colonial Rule 1700–1885, Harlow and London: Pearson Longmans. pp. xvi, 163, ISBN 978-0-582-31738-3.
• Riddick, John F. The history of British India: a chronology(2006) excerpt and text search, covers 1599–1947
• Riddick, John F. Who Was Who in British India(1998), covers 1599–1947
• Robb, Peter (2002) History of India Palgrave Macmillan, ISBN 978-0-230-34549-2 ,
• Sarkar, Sumit. Modern India, 1885–1947 (2002)
• Smith, Vincent A. (1958) The Oxford History of India(3rd ed.) the Raj section was written by Percival Spear
• Somerwell, D.C. The Reign Of King George V,(1936) covers Raj 1910–35 pp. 80–84, 282–91, 455–64 online free
• Spear, Percival (1990) A History of India, Volume 2, New Delhi and London: Penguin Books. pp. 298, ISBN 978-0-14-013836-8 , .
• Stein, Burton (2001), History of India, New Delhi and Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. xiv, 432, ISBN 978-0-19-565446-2.
• Thompson, Edward, and G.T. Garratt. Rise and Fulfillment of British Rule in India(1934) 690 pages; scholarly survey, 1599–1933 excerpt and text search
• Wolpert, Stanley (2003), A New History of India, Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 544, ISBN 978-0-19-516678-1.
• Wolpert, Stanley, ed. Encyclopedia of India(4 vol. 2005) comprehensive coverage by scholars
• Wolpert, Stanley A. (2006), Shameful Flight: The Last Years of the British Empire in India, Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0-19-539394-1
• Baker, David (1993) Colonialism in an Indian Hinterland: The Central Provinces, 1820–1920, Delhi: Oxford University Press. pp. xiii, 374, ISBN 978-0-19-563049-7
• Bayly, Christopher (2000) Empire and Information: Intelligence Gathering and Social Communication in India, 1780–1870 (Cambridge Studies in Indian History and Society), Cambridge University Press. pp. 426, ISBN 978-0-521-66360-1
• Bayly, Christopher & Harper, Timothy (2005), Forgotten Armies: The Fall of British Asia, 1941–1945, Harvard University Press, ISBN 978-0-674-01748-1 , . Retrieved 22 September 2013.
• Bayly, Christopher & Harper, Timothy (2007), Forgotten Wars: Freedom and Revolution in Southeast Asia, Harvard University Press, ISBN 978-0-674-02153-2 , . Retrieved 21 September 2013.
• Bose, Sudhindra (1916) Some Aspects of British Rule in India, vol. Volume V, Studies in the Social Sciences, Iowa City: The University, p. 79–81 ,
• Brown, Judith M. Gandhi: Prisoner of Hope(1991), scholarly biography
• Brown, Judith M. & Louis, Wm. Roger, eds. (2001) Oxford History of the British Empire: The Twentieth Century, Oxford University Press. pp. 800, ISBN 978-0-19-924679-3
• Buckland, C.E. Dictionary of Indian Biography(1906) 495 pp. full text
• Carrington, Michael (May 2013), "Officers, Gentlemen, and Murderers: Lord Curzon"s campaign against "collisions" between Indians and Europeans, 1899–1905", Modern Asian Studies T. 47 (3): 780–819 DOI 10.1017/S0026749X12000686
• Chandavarkar, Rajnarayan (1998) Imperial Power and Popular Politics: Class, Resistance and the State in India, 1850–1950, (Cambridge Studies in Indian History & Society). Cambridge University Press. pp. 400, ISBN 978-0-521-59692-3.
• Chatterji, Joya (1993) Bengal Divided: Hindu Communalism and Partition, 1932–1947, Cambridge University Press. pp. 323, ISBN 978-0-521-52328-8.
• Copland, Ian (2002) Princes of India in the Endgame of Empire, 1917–1947, (Cambridge Studies in Indian History & Society). Cambridge University Press. pp. 316, ISBN 978-0-521-89436-4.
• Das, Manmath Nath. India under Morley and Minto: politics behind revolution, repression and reforms. - G. Allen and Unwin, 1964.
• Davis, Mike (2001) Late Victorian Holocausts Verso Books, ISBN 978-1-85984-739-8
• Dewey, Clive. Anglo-Indian Attitudes: The Mind of the Indian Civil Service (2003)
• Ewing, Ann. "Administering India: The Indian Civil Service", History Today, June 1982, 32#6 pp. 43–48, covers 1858–1947
• Fieldhouse, David (1996), "For Richer, for Poorer?" , in Marshall, P. J., The Cambridge Illustrated History of the British Empire, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 400, p. 108–146, ISBN 978-0-521-00254-7
• Gilmartin, David. 1988. Empire and Islam: Punjab and the Making of Pakistan. University of California Press. 258 pages. .
• Gilmour, David. Curzon: Imperial Statesman(2006) excerpt and text search
• Gopal, Sarvepalli. British Policy in India 1858–1905 (2008)
• Gopal, Sarvepalli (1976), Jawaharlal Nehru: A Biography, Harvard U. Press, ISBN 978-0-674-47310-2 , . Retrieved February 21, 2012.
• Gopal, Sarvepalli. Viceroyalty of Lord Irwin 1926–1931 (1957)
• Gopal, Sarvepalli (1953), The Viceroyalty of Lord Ripon, 1880–1884, Oxford U. Press , . Retrieved February 21, 2012.
• Gould, William (2004) Hindu Nationalism and the Language of Politics in Late Colonial India, Cambridge U. Press. pp. 320.
• Grove, Richard H. (2007), "The Great El Nino of 1789–93 and its Global Consequences: Reconstructing an Extreme Climate Even in World Environmental History", The Medieval History Journal Vol. 10 (1&2): 75–98 DOI 10.1177/097194580701000203
• Hall-Matthews, David (November 2008), "Inaccurate Conceptions: Disputed Measures of Nutritional Needs and Famine Deaths in Colonial India ", Modern Asian Studies T. 42 (6): 1189–1212 DOI 10.1017/S0026749X07002892
• Hyam, Ronald (2007) Britain's Declining Empire: The Road to Decolonisation, 1918–1968, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 978-0-521-86649-1
• Imperial Gazetteer of India vol. III (1907), The Indian Empire, Economic (Chapter X: Famine, pp. 475–502, Published under the authority of His Majesty's Secretary of State for India in Council, Oxford at the Clarendon Press. Pp. xxx, 1 map, 552.
• Jalal, Ayesha (1993) The Sole Spokesman: Jinnah, the Muslim League and the Demand for Pakistan, Cambridge U. Press, 334 pages.
• Kaminsky, Arnold P. The India Office, 1880–1910(1986) excerpt and text search, focus on officials in London
• Khan, Yasmin (2007), The Great Partition: The Making of India and Pakistan, Yale U. Press, 250 pages, ISBN 978-0-300-12078-3
• Khan, Yasmin. India At War: The Subcontinent and the Second World War(2015), wide-ranging scholarly survey excerpt ; also published as Khan, Yasmin. The Raj At War: A People's History Of India's Second World War(2015) a major, comprehensive scholarly study
• Klein, Ira (July 2000), "Materialism, Mutiny and Modernization in British India", Modern Asian Studies T. 34 (3): 545–80
• Koomar, Roy Basanta (2009) The Labor Revolt in India, BiblioBazaar, LLC, p. 13–14, ISBN 978-1-113-34966-8
• Kumar, Deepak. Science and the Raj: A Study of British India (2006)
• Lipsett, Chaldwell. Lord Curzon in India 1898–1903(1903) excerpt and text search 128pp
• Low, D. A. (2002), Britain and Indian Nationalism: The Imprint of Ambiguity 1929–1942, Cambridge University Press. pp. 374, ISBN 978-0-521-89261-2.
• Macmillan, Margaret. Women of the Raj: The Mothers, Wives, and Daughters of the British Empire in India (2007)
• Metcalf, Thomas R. (1991), The Aftermath of Revolt: India, 1857–1870, Riverdale Co. Pub. pp. 352, ISBN 978-81-85054-99-5
• Metcalf, Thomas R. (1997), Ideologies of the Raj, Cambridge University Press, Pp. 256, ISBN 978-0-521-58937-6 ,
• Moore, Robin J. (2001a), "Imperial India, 1858–1914", in Porter, Andrew N., Oxford History of the British Empire, vol. Volume III: The Nineteenth Century, p. 422–46, ISBN 978-0-19-924678-6
• Moore, Robin J. "India in the 1940s", in Robin Winks, ed. Oxford History of the British Empire: Historiography, (2001b), pp. 231–42 (2016). wide-ranging scholarly survey, Cambridge University Press. pp. 272., ISBN 978-0-521-36328-0.
• Talbot, Ian & Singh, Gurharpal, eds. (1999) Region and Partition: Bengal, Punjab and the Partition of the Subcontinent, Oxford University Press. pp. 420, ISBN 978-0-19-579051-1.
• Thatcher, Mary. Respected Memsahibs: an Anthology(Hardinge Simpole, 2008)
• Tinker, Hugh (October 1968), "India in the First World War and after", Journal of Contemporary History Vol. 3 (4, 1918–19: From War to Peace): 89–107.
• Voigt, Johannes. India in The Second World War (1988)
• Wainwright, A. Martin (1993), Inheritance of Empire: Britain, India, and the Balance of Power in Asia, 1938–55 Praeger Publishers. pp. xvi, 256, ISBN 978-0-275-94733-0.
• Wolpert, Stanley A. (2007), "India: British Imperial Power 1858–1947 (Indian nationalism and the British response, 1885–1920; Prelude to Independence, 1920–1947)", Encyclopædia Britannica 978-0-415-24493-0
• Kumar, Dharma & Desai, Meghnad (1983), The Cambridge Economic History of India, vol. Volume 2: c. 1757-c. 1970, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 978-0-521-22802-2 ,
• Lockwood, David. The Indian Bourgeoisie: A Political History of the Indian Capitalist Class in the Early Twentieth Century(I.B. Tauris, 2012) 315 pages; focus on Indian entrepreneurs who benefited from the Raj, but ultimately sided with the Indian National Congress.
• Roy, Tirthankar (Summer 2002), "Economic History and Modern India: Redefining the Link", The Journal of Economic Perspectives T. 16 (3): 109–30 DOI 10.1257/089533002760278749
• Sarkar, J. (2013, reprint). Economics of British India... Third edition. Enlarged and partly rewritten. Calcutta: M.C. Sarkar & Sons.
• Simmons, Colin (1985), ""De-Industrialization", Industrialization and the Indian Economy, c. 1850–1947 ", Modern Asian Studies T. 19 (3): 593–622 , DOI 10.1017/s0026749x00007745
• Tirthankar, Roy (2014), "Financing the Raj: the City of London and colonial India 1858–1940", business history T. 56 (6): 1024–1026 , DOI 10.1080/00076791.2013.828424
• Tomlinson, Brian Roger (1993) The Economy of Modern India, 1860–1970, vol. Volume III, 3, New Cambridge history of India, Cambridge University Press, p. 109, ISBN 978-0-521-36230-6
• Tomlinson, Brian Roger (October 1975), "India and the British Empire, 1880-1935", Indian Economic and Social History Review. .
• Mantena, Rama Sundari. The Origins of Modern Historiography in India: Antiquarianism and Philology (2012)
• Moor-Gilbert, Bart. Writing India, 1757–1990: The Literature of British India(1996) on fiction written in English
• Mukherjee, Soumyen. "Origins of Indian Nationalism: Some Questions on the Historiography of Modern India." Sydney Studies in Society and Culture 13 (2014). online
• Parkash, Jai. "Major trends of historiography of revolutionary movement in India-Phase II." (PhD dissertation, Maharshi Dayanand University, 2013). online
• Philips, Cyril H. ed. Historians of India, Pakistan and Ceylon(1961), reviews the older scholarship
• Stern, Philip J (2009). “History and Historiography of the English East India Company: Past, Present, and Future.” history compass. 7 (4): 1146-80. DOI:10.1111/j.1478-0542.2009.00617.x .
• Young, Richard Fox, ed., Indian Christian Historiography from Below, from Above, and in Between India and the Indianness of Christianity: Essays on Understanding-Historical, Theological, and Bibliographical-in Honor of Robert Eric Frykenberg (2009)

“If we lose India, the British, who for generations have considered themselves the rulers of the world, will overnight lose their status as the greatest nation and move into the third category,” said Lord George Curzon, the most famous of the Viceroys of India. During the heyday of the empire at the end of the 19th century, this land was the fulcrum on which Great Britain controlled the entire hemisphere - from Malta to Hong Kong. So why, just two years after the victory of the Allies in World War II, thanks to which the British, at the cost of incredible costs and sacrifices, managed to completely restore their positions in Asia, did she leave India, dividing it into two independent states?

The secret of the success of the British in Asia is that they went there not to conquer it, but to make money. This does not mean that their regime in the same India was consciously conceived as a commercial enterprise: its emergence was not planned at all. The mistress of the seas in the 18th and 19th centuries herself watched with amazement the strengthening of her influence on the subcontinent, while not taking any part in the process and formally denying the fact of territorial expansion. It’s just that the British from the East India Company, established by Elizabeth I back in 1600 with the right to a fifteen-year monopoly on trade in the “East India”, turned out to be beyond the control of their government. Note that this Company was by no means the only one: under the same Elizabeth, for example, the “Mystery and the Company of traveling salesmen-adventurers for the discovery of regions, dominions, islands and unknown places” appeared, later transformed into Moscow. Others also worked - for monopoly trade with Turkey, West Africa, Canada and Spanish America. Among all of them, the East Indies at first did not stand out for special success. But everything changed when England entered into a political union with Holland after the Glorious Revolution of 1688 (King James II Stuart was deposed, and the Dutch prince William III of Orange ascended the throne). An agreement followed with the new allies, who had their own East India Company, which was even more successful. The deal allowed the British to work freely in the Indian textile market, while the Dutch were engaged in the export of spices and transit transportation to Indonesia. By 1720, the income of the British company became more than that of competitors. This logically led to the establishment of English rule in Hindustan, where the East India Company operated through a system of bases and fortified forts. Around these springboards of British entrepreneurial genius, large cities eventually grew up: Bombay, Madras and the main outpost of the Company - Calcutta. At the beginning of the 18th century, the population of India exceeded the British by twenty times, and the share of the subcontinent in world trade was 24 percent against the British three. Until the middle of the 18th century, the role of the English merchants in the struggle for the market was modest, and they, like all their "colleagues", had to prostrate before the throne of the Great Mughals in Delhi - the success of their business still completely depended on the imperial will.

But in 1740, regular invasions of the Persians and Afghans began on the peninsula, as well as heavy internal strife. Lucky figures like the Nizam (ruler) of Hyderabad snatched pieces from the Mughal possessions, in the west the Marathas claimed their rights to independence from Delhi, in general, the grip of the central government began to weaken. It was then that the Company raised its head, sensing the prospects for territorial expansion. She also had a mercenary army, which was recruited from local military castes.

First of all, Britain then sought to win the battle with its main European adversary - France, and not only in India, but also in the rest of the world. And soon the Seven Years' War (1756-1763) undermined the global positions of Paris. As early as 1757, there was a breakthrough on the Indian "front": General Robert Clive won a decisive victory at Plassey in Bengal. Eight years later, the emperor of the Mughal dynasty was forced to grant the East India Company the right of divani (civil administration) in Bengal, Bihar and Orissa. For half a century, the power of successful British merchants has spread throughout the subcontinent - as if independently, without the support of official London.

By 1818, the Company dominated most of Indian territory, and this form of government changed only after the famous Sepoy rebellion in 1857, when the crown established direct control over the state of affairs. There is no doubt that this proved to be beneficial for the British. Simple uncontrolled looting was fairly typical of those early years of the Company's power, when such representatives as Thomas Pitt, nicknamed the Brilliant, smuggled heaps of precious stones into England.

However, more often his compatriots still resorted to more complex schemes than the Spaniards in South America. For the great eastern country, they prepared the fate of a raw material appendage, a huge market for the sale of finished products of the early industrial British economy and a supplier of food. Until the 17th century, Indian textile production was so developed that British manufactories could only apprenticely copy the style of oriental fabrics imported from Hindustan. However, due to their cost, they, of course, always remained very expensive. Everything changed when the East India Company flooded the subcontinent with cheap chintz, calico and cotton from Lancashire mills.

It was a real triumph of the colonial-market concept of Britain. The metropolis forced the subcontinent to open up to imports of new, junk goods, hitherto unknown to it (it became even cheaper in 1813, when a law was passed that ended the Company's absolute monopoly - now the East India tariff restrictions have disappeared). On the one hand, India found itself in the tenacious embrace of free trade, on the other hand, the colonialists, emphasizing in every possible way their technical competitiveness, forbade the imposition of any duties on the import of their products into the subject country. The result was a kind of "free market imperialism" (this is the term used by modern English historians). In this economic way, the fate of the colony for the coming centuries was determined; and it is no coincidence that later Gandhi placed a spinning wheel - a chakra - in the center of the flag of an independent state, and swadeshi - a boycott of foreign goods - became a favorite demand and slogan of the first nationalists ...

In addition, India opened up to its conqueror unprecedented opportunities for storing and increasing capital. By 1880, the total investment in the country amounted to 270 million pounds - a fifth of Britain's huge investment portfolio, by 1914 this figure had grown to 400 million. Investments in India in relative terms turned out (an unprecedented case in history) even more profitable than long-term operations in the domestic economy of the United Kingdom: the colonial authorities assured the huge mass of businessmen of the reliability of the new market and did not deceive their expectations.

The colony, as best it could, returned to the mother country its "care" a hundredfold - for example, by military force. The famous Indian regiments proved to be excellent in the battles of the 19th century. The new subjects faithfully served the empire in various parts of the world, from South Africa to Western Europe - here they took part in both world wars: about a million volunteers participated in the First and almost twice as many in the Second ... And in peacetime, the number of Indian reservists also numbered in considerable numbers. In 1881, 69,477 British soldiers served in the colonial army - "against" 125,000 natives recruited from those Indians whom the conquerors considered "born warriors": Muslims and Sikhs. In total, these troops accounted for 62 percent of the entire land power of Great Britain at the end of the 19th century. In general, Prime Minister Lord Salisbury noted with good reason: India is "the English barracks on the Eastern Seas, from where we can always call on any number of free soldiers."

Of course, in general, British society was inclined to justify its dominion in a more noble way as the fulfillment of its civilizing mission. Perhaps most clearly, this idea was formulated by the historian Thomas Babington Macaulay at one of the sessions of Parliament in 1835. He expressed the wish that in the colony "a layer of Indians by blood and skin color, but English - by tastes, worldview, morality and intellect" be formed. The idea that the purpose of the English presence is the improvement of the natives, in general, was comprehensive. It was believed that the static, amorphous Indian society in all decisive areas should learn from the most advanced power in the world. Naturally, this implied the absolute degeneration of the local ancient culture. The same Macaulay, with inconceivable arrogance, argued that "a single shelf from a good European library is worth all the national literature of India and Arabia." Protestant missionaries were guided by similar considerations. The Asian lands, they believed, were given to Britain "not for extracting momentary benefits, but for distribution among the natives, wandering in the darkness of disgusting and corrupting prejudices, light and the beneficial influence of Truth"! And William Wilberforce, an enlightened and noble man, the founder of the Anti-Slaver Movement, spoke even more sharply: “It is the religion of savages. All her rites must be eliminated."

What do modern historians think about this? Some believe that the occupying power, geographically dispersed and devoid of long-term potential, did not have a special impact on the native society, with which it interacted in a historical perspective for a very short time.

Others still see the British influence as a refreshing renewal that had a quite beneficial effect on the people of India themselves: the harsh laws of the caste system were relaxed and even the emergence of a united India, the idea of ​​national unity was indirectly suggested by the colonialists. Remembering those who sweated, fell ill and died in the vastness of India, the famous "singer of imperialism" Kipling wrote: "... like life-giving moisture, we gave this land the best, and if there is a country that flourished on the blood of martyrs, then this country is India." The authorities were not only concerned with general health care, such as malaria prevention and vaccination against smallpox (which the Hindus strongly opposed as ritually defiling!). In order to feed a country with an ever-growing population, they have increased the area of ​​irrigated land by eight times during their activity. The welfare of the different classes also began to slightly level out: the total income after taxes in agriculture increased from 45 to 54 percent, which meant that inequality was actually reduced to some extent. True, at that time no one really cared about these figures ... The 20th century and great upheavals were approaching.

Paid in blood

The First World War appears in history as the starting point from which the national consciousness of the Indians takes shape in a clear political movement capable of setting goals and fighting for them. Natural riots have happened before, of course. For example, in 1912, when administrative reform was being planned in Bengal, the radical nationalist Rash Behari Bowes threw a bomb at Viceroy Lord Hardinge. The Indian National Congress Party, founded as early as 1885 (after transforming many times, it would later come to power in the new India), also struggled to achieve self-government, not yet demanding independence. But it was the war that changed everything - the colony paid too high a bloody price: the names of 60,000 dead are inscribed on the India Gate arch in New Delhi.

In 1917, the British had to take a course on "the gradual formation of a government of India as an integral part of the British Empire" - a government "recruited" from Indians and for Indians. In 1919, a new Law on Administration saw the light, the first step on the path that the colonialists were now following. He proclaimed the principle of diarchy - dual government, in which central authority in Calcutta remained completely in British hands, and in the localities would be led by members of national parties like the INC - they were counted on primarily in terms of "work with the population", as they would say today. To explain to him, the population, the decisions taken by the authorities. Such a cunning and cautious concession, although seemingly negligible, unexpectedly turned out to be a bomb in the solid foundation of the empire. Having received little, the natives thought about their situation in general. It didn’t take long to look for a reason to be outraged – the new laws retained the restrictions on civil liberties introduced back in wartime (for example, the right of the police to place anyone in custody without trial). A new form of protest, the "hartal", a Western equivalent of a strike, spread throughout the peninsula, and in some areas resulted in conflicts so serious that local administrations had to impose martial law.

Public flogging is everywhere and always a common method of punishing the recalcitrant. April 1919

One of these areas was the traditionally troubled Punjab, where in April 1919 General Reginald Dyer commanded one of the infantry brigades. Heavy smoker, irritable and cocky; a bully who, according to the descriptions of contemporaries, "was happy only when he climbed enemy fortifications with a revolver in his teeth", he was the worst suited to lead troops in such delicate circumstances. Upon arrival at the command post in Amritsar, the first thing he did was to prohibit any gatherings of citizens in his area of ​​responsibility. The next day, the general, accompanied by a drummer and a combat guard, marched through the streets to the main shrine of the Sikhs - the Golden Temple, stopping every now and then to shout out an announcement: fire would be opened on any crowds of people. Nevertheless, in the late afternoon, a crowd of 10 or 20 thousand people gathered on the Jallianwala Bagh square, surrounded on three sides by blank high walls. Fulfilling his own promise, Dyer appeared there, accompanied by 50 shooters, and opened fire without any warning. “I fired and kept firing until the audience dispersed,” he later recalled. But the fact is that the crowd had nowhere to “disperse” - some doomed from despair tried to climb the sheer fortifications, someone jumped into the well and drowned there, because others jumped from above ... In total, 379 died and a thousand people were injured. Subsequently, the frantic general practiced public flogging of representatives of the higher castes, forced the Indians to crawl on their stomachs along the street, where the crowd once beat the English doctor Marcella Sherwood (by the way, the natives themselves saved her). In his later years, he smugly admitted that his intention was "to strike fear into the whole Punjab."

But instead, in the words of Mahatma Gandhi, "the foundations of the empire were shaken." Another great Hindu, Jawaharlal Nehru, later the first Prime Minister of India, recalled how his political position changed dramatically when, during one of his trips around the country on behalf of the INC, he heard Dyer justify his own atrocities without the slightest regret in the next car.

Henceforth, for most Indians, the British Raj was stained with blood. Only the opponents of the Hindus, the Sikhs, who proclaimed the “Amritsar butcher” an honorary representative of their people, rejoiced at the beating ...

What is sub-imperialism?
Speaking of British rule in India, we are dealing with a phenomenon that historians often call "sub-imperialism" ("secondary imperialism"). The classical scheme of relations between the metropolis, personified by the government of the colonizing country, and the colony in this case includes an intermediary to whom the metropolis delegates its powers “on the spot”. This delegation happened unscheduled. For example, the British government could issue laws like the Indian Act of 1784 as much as it liked, which stated: “The policy of conquest and the extension of our dominion in India is incompatible with the aspirations, politics and honor of this state”, but the remoteness of India reduced the influence of London on the actions of its subjects “on the spot events" to zero. The sea voyage to Calcutta via Cape Town took about half a year, and it should have started only in the spring, in accordance with the wind rose, while the return journey could only be started in the autumn. The governor has been waiting for an answer to the most urgent request for more than two years! Despite his accountability to Parliament, his degree of freedom of action was enormous, and he cared about the security of trade in British India much more than the authorities in the mother country. Let us take, for example, the sharp rebuke of the governor Earl Wellesley, who admonished a stubborn admiral who was afraid to oppose the French without a royal order: "If I were guided by the same principle as Your Excellency, Mysore would never have been taken." Wellesley didn't discover America. Sub-imperialism flourished already under his predecessor, Lord Cornwallis, who nurtured a galaxy of officials - "Asiatic conquistadors". The British won not so much by force as by traditional political cunning, taking advantage of the disunity of the country. The Indian historian G.Kh. Kann: "... the fact that almost all of Hindustan passed into the hands of the British is a consequence of the disunity of the Indian rulers." Take, for example, General Clive's struggle with the Nawab (Mughal governor) of Bengal and his French allies in 1757. The Briton was supported not only by the local banking house of Jaget Set: before the decisive battle of Plassey, Clive managed to win over the major military leader Mir Jafar, who was initially hostile to him, to his side. The army of the East India Company, commanded by Clive that day, generally consisted of two-thirds of the Indians. Such wonderful examples of English politics led to the birth of the so-called "Company Raj" - "Company Dominion". There was a joke about this "unplanned child" that the empire was growing "in a fit of unconsciousness."

"Mahatma" means "great soul"

The massacre in Amritsar opened the eyes to the essence of what was happening and Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, who was granted the authority of the Mahatma (“Great Soul”) by rumor. Having arrived in 1914 from South Africa, Gandhi, who was educated in London, for the next few years confessed his “love for the British Empire” on all corners, but reality could not help but shake his views. His transformation from a lawyer dressed like a dandy to a freedom fighter to an almost holy man in light robes is textbook and, one might say, the cornerstone of New India political history. Gandhi managed to become a national leader in the full sense of the word, and he called his strategic method, the political technology used for this, "satyagraha" - literally "fortitude". That is, the rejection of all violence in the struggle and such everyday behavior that will ensure the purity of each individual, and through him the purity of the people.

The most striking action of Satyagraha was the famous "Salt March" of 1930 - a peaceful march from the ashram (abode) of the Mahatma on the Sabarmati River to the shore of the Indian Ocean, where it was supposed to collect water in pots, make fire and "extract" salt, thereby violating the famous British monopoly , one of the foundations of the colonial regime. In the same way, repeatedly calling for peaceful civil disobedience in the 20s and 30s of the last century, the INC, under the informal leadership of Gandhi, exerted effective pressure on the authorities. As a result, a Commission was set up in 1927 to draft a constitution, and in 1930 and 1931 two "round tables" were held in London with the participation of representatives of interested parties. At the first meeting, Mahatma was absent (he was in prison), and the Congress refused to participate. He arrived at the second one - but only to, to his own regret, state the intransigence of positions ...

India Act

In 1935, Parliament at Westminster did pass the India Act, the longest act ever issued by the British government. He granted the great colony the status of a self-governing dominion. Moreover, this document gave Delhi autonomy in matters of taxes and duties - that is, the end of the very “free trade imperialism”, a system in which Britain freely flooded India with the products of its textile industry, came to an end. By and large, it gradually became clear that the national liberation movement was forcing Britain to make concessions in which the very purpose of her domination was undermined, and she had no choice but to prepare for her own departure. It is worth noting, however, that the value of India as a “colonial asset” has already fallen somewhat before: the decline in the share of agriculture in the economy after the Great Depression of 1929 played its role. So the Law of 1935 seems to be a simple pragmatic reaction to reality, an admission: "Hindustan as capital is depleted."

Of course, you shouldn't oversimplify. The document was developed with another goal: to keep anti-British forces from radical speeches, and India itself - under control. Supporters of the Law were sure that the INC, not possessing internal structural unity, under the "delicate" pressure of the government, could well disintegrate. The newfound nationalism was supposed to be weakened - this time not by repression, but by cooperation. For example, under the new position, the power of the Rajas was preserved, with the help of which England in all past times indirectly ruled one third of the subcontinent. Thus the reformist tendencies among those who were to be elected to the new free parliament of India were somewhat subdued, and the "feudal element" among them was encouraged. In addition, in practice, it turned out that the articles of the Law, which stipulated the functions of the central government of the Indian Dominion, could not enter into force without the consent of half of the princes.

But despite the slyness and unsatisfactoriness of the proposed conditions, they nevertheless convinced the majority of Indian nationalists. All the leading parties took part in the 1937 elections instead of boycotting them. Thus, the British, regardless of considerations of economic expediency, drowned out for the time being the demands of "Purna Swaraj" - the complete self-government of India. Of course, this does not mean that in the London political kitchen they believed that power over the country would be eternal. But in the 1930s, they still enjoyed sufficient authority in Hindustan to postpone the solution of the issue - as it seemed then, for an indefinite period ...

Step by step towards independence
On July 14, 1942, the Indian National Congress demanded full independence for India, promising large-scale acts of civil disobedience in case of refusal. In early August, Gandhi called on his compatriots to the promised defiance, urging them to behave worthy of a free nation and not follow the orders of the colonialists. Excited by the approach of Japanese troops to the Indo-Burmese border, the British responded by arresting Gandhi and all members of the Working Committee of the INC. The young activist Aruna Asaf-Ali came to lead the independence forces, raising the Congress flag in a Bombay park on August 9, 1942, where Gandhi had called for freedom the day before. The next move of the authorities simply banned the Congress, which caused only an explosion of sympathy for him. A wave of protests, strikes and demonstrations swept across the country - not always peaceful. Bombs exploded in some areas, government buildings were set on fire, electricity was cut off, transport systems and communications were destroyed. The British responded with more reprisals: more than 100,000 people were taken into custody across the country, demonstrators were subjected to public flogging. Hundreds of people were affected by shooting, open police and army. Leaders National Movement went underground, but managed to speak on the radio, distribute leaflets and create parallel governments. The colonialists even sent a Navy ship to take Gandhi and other leaders somewhere far away - to South Africa or to Yemen, but it never came to that. Congressional leaders have been behind bars for more than three years. Gandhi himself, however, was released in 1944 due to deteriorating health, undermined, in particular, by a 21-day hunger strike. Mahatma did not give up and demanded the release of his comrades. On the whole, by the beginning of 1944, the situation in India had become relatively calm. Only strife continued among Muslims, communists and extremists. In 1945, the situation was aggravated by a series of unrest among the Indian military - officers, soldiers and sailors. There was, in particular, the Bombay mutiny, in which, among other crews, 78 ships participated (a total of 20 thousand people). By early 1946, the authorities had released all political prisoners, entering into an open dialogue with the INC about the transfer of leadership. It all ended on August 15, 1947, when India was declared independent. “When the clock strikes midnight, when the whole world is asleep, India will wake up to life and freedom. Such moments are very rare in history: we take a step from the old to the new. India finds itself again,” Jawaharlal Nehru wrote about Indian Independence Day.

Intangible factor

... But history decreed otherwise. The authority of London was irretrievably undermined by the tragic events of World War II. It staggered along with the prestige of Britain already in 1941-1942, when the empire was defeated by the new-found "Asian tiger", Japan. As you know, immediately after the attack on Pearl Harbor, its troops attacked Malaysia, Burma, Singapore and a short time captured these English territories. In Indian society, this caused mixed feelings of panic and exhilaration. The London wartime cabinet hastily dispatched its special representative, Sir Stafford Cripps, to consult with the INC in order to secure the party's full support in military matters and thus prevent the formation of a "fifth column". The Gandhists, however, refused to cooperate, on the grounds that the Viceroy had announced India's entry into the war as early as 1939 without a word of warning.

And as soon as Cripps left for his homeland "empty-handed", the INC organized (in August 1942) the "Get Out of India" movement demanding the immediate withdrawal of the British. The latter had no choice but to immediately arrest Gandhi and his closest associates. The Indians responded with riots, although the British subsequently claimed that Congress had pre-planned a mutiny in case their leadership was detained, in fact the nature of the protests was spontaneous. Thousands of natives believed that the crown was shaken. In the archives of British intelligence relating to this time, reports of the most fantastic rumors have been preserved. Here is what people told, say, about the extraordinary military skill of the Japanese: they say, in Madras, for example, a Japanese paratrooper landed right in the crowd of people, talked to eyewitnesses in their native language, and then ... soared by parachute back to the side of the plane! The unambiguously racial overtones of this reaction are also visible in the Indian press. Being under the strict control of military censorship, which vigilantly monitored defeatist moods, the newspapers nevertheless amaze with some wording. Allahabad "Leader" called the fall of Singapore "the most important historical event that has ever happened in our lifetime - the victory of non-whites over whites. The Amrita Bazar Patrika in Calcutta agreed that "the peoples of Asia, who have suffered for so long under the European race, cannot go back to the old days of plantation rule." And even in August 1945, the same publication noted with horror that the Americans had chosen “precisely the Asians” to test their atomic bomb, adding that from now on the world must be freed from such concepts as “higher and lower, masters and slaves.”

The conclusion suggests itself: it turns out that the main impetus that accelerated the movement of the subcontinent to independence was an ephemeral, intangible factor - the loss of that almost mystical respect that the Indian once had for the "white Sahib". But only “on a bayonet”, as Napoleon said, “you can’t sit” ... In 1881, according to the census, there were only 89,778 British for the 300 million population of India - if the country had not accepted their rule, it would not have been difficult to get rid of such power . In the 1940s, this ratio was less critical, and yet the pillars of power were crumbling. Most feature here, of course, the loss of loyalty of the Indian military. Riots in the Royal Navy units in Karachi and Bombay in February 1946 could only be stopped with the assistance of the INC, and in April of that year the representative of the mother country in the government of India expressed doubt that the soldiers would have remained on the side of the British if the party refused to mediate.

We remember how in 1935 the colonialists counted on a constitutional agreement that would allow them to remain in India for the foreseeable future. Only ten years had passed, and the Labor government of Clement Attlee, instinctively feeling the irreversibility of post-war changes, was simply looking for a convenient way out. An opportunity to save face and leave with dignity.

Divide and rule

The disintegration in August 1947 of India into Pakistan and India proper is often blamed on the "two-faced British Empire". She allegedly applied her favorite principle of "divide and conquer" and in every possible way increased mutual distrust and tension in society. The British are also accused of deliberate fraud: they say, in order to belittle the influence of the INC during the granting of India's independence, they deliberately exaggerated, inflated the "quota" of concessions and guarantees in the constitution to the opponents of this party - the Muslims. Their leader Mohammed Ali Jinnah thus acquired influence disproportionate to the number of his supporters, and managed to bring matters to a national split.

But after all, the first demands for the secession of the Muslim regions were made during the elections of 1937: then the INC and other coalitions of Hindu candidates won the overall victory, but the Muslims, and primarily the Jinnah Islamic League, received more than 80 seats - or a little less than a quarter in percentage terms. calculus. It was a great success, allowing the ambitious politician to seriously turn to the poetic idea of ​​\u200b\u200bunifying fellow believers, which was expressed by Muhammad Iqbal. This well-known thinker dreamed of a new independent homeland for the Indian followers of the Prophet - "Pakistan", the "Country of the Faithful" (literally - the "Country of the Pure"). The demand to create it in practice again was loudly voiced in March 1940, and the British, desperately looking for any allies on the subcontinent, recognized Jinnah's right to represent all the Muslims of the subcontinent. They even promised that they would follow his wishes in their future constitutional proposals. So the two sides were "bound by a blood oath."

In June 1945, Jinnah, an "advocate for fellow believers," successfully failed the Anglo-Indian conference in Simla to resolve political conflicts in the dominion, and in the elections in the winter of 1945/46, his League won all 30 seats specially reserved for Muslims in the Central Legislative Council. True, it seemed that it was still far from the consent of all parties to the separation of the provinces with a predominantly Islamic population, and the flexible leader at first blackmailed the authorities with this extreme demand - in order to simply win additional concessions and benefits. But then his adherents themselves were outraged: “Give up Pakistan? But what about the oath on the Koran to fight and die for him?!” One of the leaders of the League later wrote: “Wherever I went, people said: Bhai (brother)! If we do not vote for independence, we will become kafirs (infidels)!”

But who nevertheless made the final decision: the plan to create a united India, a federation of provinces with broad autonomy - is not destined to take place? Genie? No, he just agreed. The National Congress turned out to be against it: Jawaharlal Nehru, who headed it by that time, wanted to see a strong unified government at the head of the country, not torn apart by fundamental contradictions. "Better a truncated India than a weak one"...

Is it any wonder that such a tough stance led to bloodshed? On August 16, 1946, Muhammad Jinnah declared the "Day of Direct Action", that is, he called on Muslims to disobey the newly proclaimed INC government. It ended dramatically - only during the "Great Calcutta massacre" four thousand people of different faiths were killed ...

Armed rebels are preparing to march into Kashmir. December 1947

The law enforcement system collapsed. Realizing this, the British decided to just leave, and as soon as possible. In the second half of the same 1946, Attlee in London announced his intention to “let go” of India in June 1948, but already on June 4, 1947, the then Viceroy, Lord Lewis Mountbatten, had to set an earlier date, August 15, 1947. The map with the future border between India and Pakistan drawn on it was drawn up by an ordinary official of the administration by the name of Radcliffe and was kept in the Viceroy's safe until the very declaration of independence ...

Immediately after the publication of this map, a terrible confusion began. Bengal suffered, divided exactly in half. The same fate befell the Punjab. Demobilized from the fronts of North Africa and Southeast Asia, former British Hindu soldiers created a powerful military community called the "Sword, Shield and Spear of India" to attack villages and columns of gentile refugees. Sikh gangs raided the Muslim-majority East Punjab up to four times a night. Violence has penetrated literally into the flesh and blood of society: during Muslim attacks on Hindu villages, husbands forced their wives to jump into wells so that they would at least die undefiled, and then they themselves fought to the end. Another terrifying sign of the times was the "ghost trains" that delivered only hundreds of corpses to their destination stations.

People who previously did not even think of leaving their homes now understood: if you want to survive, you must be on the “right” side of the border. The most massive migration of peoples in the history of South Asia began. Within four months of 1947, about five million Hindus and Sikhs moved from Pakistan to India, and five and a half million Muslims moved in the opposite direction. A similar, albeit smaller scale castling occurred between West and East Bengal (future Bangladesh). In such a cruel way, a religiously homogeneous Pakistan was formed. The number of victims whose lives it was paid for is not exactly known: estimates range from two hundred thousand to a million. Most likely, the Pakistani historian Stephens, who in 1963 settled on a figure of approximately half a million Indians and Pakistanis, is closest to the truth. The loss of moral guidance caused by the split can be judged by the treatment of abducted women: during punitive or simply predatory raids on both sides, women were not killed, but taken away as trophies. “After the massacre was over,” says one military correspondence, “the girls were handed out like dessert.” Many were simply sold or abandoned by rape.

Some, however, were forced into marriage, and then, after the terrible 1947, the governments in Delhi and Islamabad set to work to find and repatriate such unfortunates. Some rejoiced at the opportunity to return, while others, fearing that their relatives would not want to take them back, refused to go. These latter, in accordance with mutual agreements and the general mood of society, were taken to where they came from, by force - this continued until 1954.

Epilogue. Inevitability.

Could the British have prevented or mitigated this bloody bacchanalia and avoided the division of the country if they had not left the colony at the most dramatic moment? Here we again return to the question of prestige. It was the inevitability of the end of their rule, the general awareness of this near end that created the atmosphere of intolerance in 1945-1947. Everyone was waiting for a settlement, but the war only increased the religious coloring of Indian political forces. Hence the bloody clashes, hence, with all inevitability, the collapse of India. Violence became both a cause and a consequence of the split, and the British, having almost let go of the administrative reins, could not contain the warring factions. The financial situation within Great Britain itself did not allow the maintenance of a huge military contingent, necessary in these conditions and unnecessary before. The decision to leave was simply dictated by the famous British common sense...

We, guided by the same common sense, can judge that the British are hardly guilty of deliberately condoning the Indian split. After all, the main pathos of their two centuries of domination, in the end, consisted in the opposite - in all kinds of unification: political, cultural, social. Were they not, once taking advantage of the disunity of the subcontinent, conquered and weaved its scattered lands into one motley blanket, for the first time introduced commonly used, familiar to all state languages entangled the country with a network of railways and telegraph wires, thus preparing the ground for organized resistance to their own power in the future? It is quite possible that if it were not for the colonial history of India, about two dozen states would be located on its territory today ...

But be that as it may, the age of "old imperialism" is over. Now, at the beginning of the 21st century, we are witnessing attempts - however, with the help of the same military force! - to plant a completely new version of it, the imperialism of political systems and ideas. Perhaps, given the spread of humanitarian values, this task in itself is quite worthy. But, remembering the lessons of British rule in India, it is worth realizing that everything on the political map of the world ends sooner or later. And, as a rule, it ends abruptly.

The riches of India haunted the Europeans. The Portuguese began systematic exploration of the Atlantic coast of Africa in 1418 under the auspices of Prince Henry, eventually circumnavigating Africa and entering the Indian Ocean in 1488. In 1498, a Portuguese expedition led by Vasco da Gama was able to reach India, circumnavigating Africa and opening up a direct trade route. to Asia. In 1495, the French and English and, a little later, the Dutch, entered the race to discover new lands, challenging the Iberian monopoly on maritime trade routes and exploring new routes.

Vasco de Gama sailing route.
In July 1497, a small exploratory fleet of four ships and about 170 crew members under the command of Vasco da Gama left Lisbon. In December, the fleet reached the Great Fish River (the place where Diash turned back) and headed for uncharted waters. On May 20, 1498, the expedition arrived in Calicut, in southern India. Vasco da Gama's attempts to get the best trading conditions failed due to the low value of the goods they brought in compared to the high-value goods that were sold there. Two years after the arrival of Gama and the remaining crew of 55 people on two ships, they returned with glory to Portugal and became the first Europeans to reach India by sea.

At that time, on the territory of modern India, Pakistan and Afghanistan, there was a huge empire of the "Great Moghuls". The state existed from 1526 to 1858 (actually until the middle of the 19th century). The name "Great Mughals" appeared already under the British colonialists. The term "Mogul" was used in India to refer to the Muslims of North India and Central Asia.
The empire was founded by Babur, who was forced to migrate from Central Asia to the territory of Hindustan. Babur's army included representatives of various peoples and tribes that were part of the Timurid state of that time, such as, for example, Turkic, Mogul and other tribes.
The founder of the state of Baburids (1526) in India - Zahireddin Muhammad Babur (February 14, 1483 - December 26, 1530). Babur is a descendant of Tamerlane from the Barlas clan. He ruled in the city of Andijan (modern Uzbekistan), and was forced to flee from the warring nomadic Kipchak Turks, first to Afghanistan (Herat), and then went on a campaign to Northern India. Babur's son, Humayun (1530-1556), inherited from his father a vast kingdom stretching from the Ganges to the Amu Darya, but did not hold it, and for more than 25 years the Afghan dynasty of Sher Shah occupied his throne.

Map of the Mughal Empire. The borders of the empire: - under Babur (1530), - under Akbar (1605), - under Aurangzeb (1707).
Actually the founder of the Mughal Empire is the son of Humayun - Akbar (1556-1605). The reign of Akbar (49 years) was dedicated to the unification and appeasement of the state. He turned the independent Muslim states into provinces of his empire, he made the Hindu rajas his vassals, partly by alliances, partly by force.
The appointment of ministers, governors and other officials from the Hindus won the favor and devotion of the Hindu population to the new monarch. The hated tax on non-Muslims was abolished.
Akbar translated the sacred books and epic poems of the Hindus into Persian, was interested in their religion and respected their laws, although he forbade some inhuman customs. The last years of his life were overshadowed by family troubles and the behavior of his eldest son, Selim, vindictive and cruel, who rebelled against his father.
Akbar was one of the most prominent Muslim rulers in India. Distinguished by great military talent (he did not lose a single battle), he did not like war and preferred peaceful pursuits.
Imbued with broad religious tolerance, Akbar allowed free discussion of the tenets of Islam.
Since 1720, the collapse of the empire begins. This year, under Sultan Mohammed Shah, the Viceroy of the Deccan, Nizam-ul-Mulk (1720-1748), forms his own independent state. His example was followed by the governor of Aud, who became a vizier from a simple Persian merchant, and then the first Nawab of Aud, under the name of Nawab Vizier of Aud (1732-1743).
The Marathas (one of the indigenous Indian peoples) imposed tribute on the whole of South India, broke through eastern India to the north and forced the concession of Malwa from Muhammad Shah (1743), and Orissa was taken away from his son and successor Ahmed Shah (1748-1754) and received the right tribute from Bengal (1751).
Internal strife was joined by attacks from outside. In 1739, the Persian Nadir Shah made an incursion into India. After taking Delhi and sacking the city for 58 days, the Persians returned home through the northwest passes with booty valued at £32 million.
Vasco da Gama's expedition marked the beginning of Portugal's colonial conquests on the west coast of India. Military fleets with large numbers of soldiers and artillery were sent annually from Portugal to capture Indian ports and naval bases. With firearms and artillery at their disposal, the Portuguese destroyed the fleets of their trade rivals - Arab merchants - and captured their bases.
In 1505, Almeida was appointed viceroy of the Portuguese possessions in India. He defeated the Egyptian fleet at Diu and entered the Persian Gulf. His successor Albuquerque, a cunning, cruel and enterprising colonialist, blocked all approaches to India for Arab merchants. He captured Ormuz, a trading and strategic point at the entrance to the Persian Gulf, and also closed the exit from the Red Sea. In 1510 Albuquerque captured the city of Goa. Goa became the center of Portuguese possessions in India. The Portuguese did not seek to capture large territories, but created only strongholds and trading posts for the export of colonial goods. Having established themselves on the Malabar coast of India, they began to move east, to the centers of spice production. In 1511, the Portuguese captured Malacca, thus opening the way to the Moluccas and China. In 1516, a Portuguese expedition appeared off the coast of China. Soon a Portuguese trading post was established in Macau (southwest of Canton). At the same time, the Portuguese settled in the Moluccas and began to export spices from there.
The Portuguese monopolized the spice trade. They forced the local population to sell them spices at "fixed prices" - 100-200 times lower than the prices in the Lisbon market. In order to maintain high prices for colonial goods on the European market, no more than 5-6 ships with spices were brought in per year, and the surplus was destroyed.

At the beginning of the 17th century, other European maritime powers also rushed into the colonial race.

Map of European trading settlements in India, showing years of foundation and nationality.

In several European powers ripe for colonialism (except Portugal, where the exploitation of the colonies was considered a matter of state), companies were established with a monopoly on trade with the East Indies:
British East India Company - founded in 1600
Dutch East India Company - established in 1602
Danish East India Company - established in 1616
French East India Company - established in 1664
Austrian East India Company - founded in 1717 in the Austrian Netherlands
Swedish East India Company - established in 1731

The most successful and famous was British East India Company(Eng. East India Company), until 1707 - the English East India Company - a joint-stock company established on December 31, 1600 by decree of Elizabeth I and received extensive privileges for trading in India. With the help of the East India Company, the British colonization of India and a number of countries of the East was carried out.
In fact, the royal decree gave the company a monopoly on trade in India. Initially, the company had 125 shareholders and a capital of £72,000. The company was run by a governor and a board of directors who were responsible to the shareholders' meeting. The commercial company soon acquired government and military functions, which it lost only in 1858. Following the Dutch East India Company, the British also began to place their shares on the stock exchange.
In 1612, the armed forces of the company inflict a serious defeat on the Portuguese at the Battle of Suvali. In 1640, the local ruler of Vijayanagara allowed the establishment of a second trading post in Madras. In 1647, the company already had 23 trading posts in India. Indian fabrics (cotton and silk) are in incredible demand in Europe. Tea, grain, dyes, cotton, and later Bengali opium are also exported. In 1668, the Company leased the island of Bombay, a former Portuguese colony ceded to England as a dowry by Catherine of Braganza, who had married Charles II. In 1687 the Company's headquarters in West Asia was moved from Surat to Bombay. The company tried to force trading privileges, but lost, and was forced to ask the Great Mogul for mercy. In 1690, the Company's settlement was founded in Calcutta, after the appropriate permission of the Great Mogul. The expansion of the Company to the subcontinent began; at the same time the same expansion was carried out by a number of other European East India Companies - Dutch, French and Danish.

Meeting of shareholders of the East India Company.
In 1757, at the Battle of Plassey, the troops of the British East India Company, led by Robert Clive, defeated the troops of the Bengal ruler Siraj-ud-Dole - just a few volleys of British artillery put the Indians to flight. After the victory at Buxar (1764), the company receives divani - the right to rule Bengal, Bihar and Orissa, full control over the Nawab of Bengal and confiscates the Bengal treasury (values ​​of 5 million 260 thousand pounds sterling were confiscated). Robert Clive becomes the first British governor of Bengal. Meanwhile, expansion continued around bases in Bombay and Madras. The Anglo-Mysore Wars of 1766-1799 and the Anglo-Maratha Wars of 1772-1818 made the Company the dominant force south of the Sutlej River.
For almost a century, the company pursued a ruinous policy in its Indian possessions, which resulted in the destruction of traditional crafts and the degradation of agriculture, which led to the death of up to 40 million Indians from starvation. According to the famous American historian Brooks Adams, in the first 15 years after the annexation of India, the British removed from Bengal valuables worth 1 billion pounds. By 1840, the British ruled most of India. The unrestrained exploitation of the Indian colonies was the most important source of British capital accumulation and the industrial revolution in England.
The expansion took two main forms. The first was the use of so-called subsidiary contracts, essentially feudal - local rulers transferred the conduct of foreign affairs to the Company and were obliged to pay a "subsidy" for the maintenance of the Company's army. In case of non-payment, the territory was annexed by the British. In addition, the local ruler undertook to maintain a British official ("resident") at his court. Thus, the company recognized "native states" headed by Hindu Maharajas and Muslim Nawabs. The second form was direct rule.
The strongest opponents of the Company were two states that formed on the ruins of the Mughal empire - the Maratha Union and the state of the Sikhs. The collapse of the Sikh empire was facilitated by the chaos that followed the death in 1839 of its founder, Ranjit Singh. Civil strife broke out both between individual sardars (generals of the Sikh army and de facto large feudal lords), and between the Khalsa (the Sikh community) and the darbar (courtyard). In addition, the Sikh population experienced friction with local Muslims, often ready to fight under British banners against the Sikhs.

Ranjit Singh, the first Maharaja of the Punjab.

At the end of the 18th century, active expansion began under Governor-General Richard Wellesley; The company captured Cochin (1791), Jaipur (1794), Travancourt (1795), Hyderabad (1798), Mysore (1799), principalities along the Sutlej River (1815), central Indian principalities (1819), Kutch and Gujarat (1819), Rajputana ( 1818), Bahawalpur (1833). The annexed provinces included Delhi (1803) and Sindh (1843). Punjab, the Northwest Frontier and Kashmir were captured in 1849 during the Anglo-Sikh wars. Kashmir was immediately sold to the Dogra dynasty, which ruled in the principality of Jammu, and became a "native state". In 1854 Berard was annexed, in 1856 Oud.
In 1857, an uprising against the British East India campaign was raised, which is known in India as the First War of Independence or the Sepoy Rebellion. However, the rebellion was crushed, and the British Empire established direct administrative control over almost the entire territory of South Asia.

Fight between the British and the sepoys.

After the Indian National Uprising in 1857, the English Parliament passed the Act for the Better Government of India, according to which the company transferred its administrative functions to the British crown from 1858. In 1874 the company was liquidated.

Dutch East India Company- Dutch trading company. Founded in 1602, existed until 1798. Carried out trade (including tea, copper, silver, textiles, cotton, silk, ceramics, spices and opium) with Japan, China, Ceylon, Indonesia; monopolized trade with these countries of the Pacific and Indian Oceans.

By 1669, the company was the richest private firm the world had ever seen, with over 150 commercial ships, 40 warships, 50,000 employees, and a private army of 10,000 soldiers. The company took part in the political disputes of the time along with the states. So, in 1641, she independently, without the help of the Dutch state, knocked out her competitors, the Portuguese, from present-day Indonesia. For this, armed groups from the local population were created at the expense of the company.
The company was in constant conflict with the British Empire; experienced financial difficulties after the defeat of Holland in the war with that country in 1780-1784, and fell apart as a result of these difficulties.

French East India Company- French trading company. Founded in 1664 by finance minister Jean-Baptiste Colbert. The first CEO of the company was François Caron, who had worked for the Dutch East India Company for thirty years, including 20 years in Japan. The company failed in an attempt to capture Madagascar, content with the neighboring islands - Bourbon (now Reunion) and Ile-de-France (now Mauritius).

For some time, the company actively interfered in Indian politics, concluding agreements with the rulers of the southern Indian territories. These attempts were thwarted by the English Baron Robert Clive, who represented the interests of the British East India Company.

The Battle of Plassey (more precisely, Broadswords) is a battle off the banks of the Bhagirathi River in West Bengal, in which on June 23, 1757, British Colonel Robert Clive, representing the interests of the British East India Company, inflicted a crushing defeat on the troops of the Bengal Nawab Siraj ud-Daula, on the side by the French East India Company.
An armed clash was provoked by the capture by the Nawab (who considered that the British had violated previous agreements) of the British bridgehead in Bengal - Fort William on the territory of modern Calcutta. The Board of Directors sent Colonel Robert Clive and Admiral Charles Watson to counter the Madras Bengalis. A significant role in the victory of the British was played by the betrayal of the commanders of the Nawab.
The battle began at 7:00 am on June 23, 1757, when the Indian army went on the offensive and opened artillery fire on the British positions.
At 11:00 am, one of the Indian commanders led the attack, but was killed by a British cannonball. This caused panic among his soldiers.
At noon it began to rain heavily. The British promptly hid gunpowder, guns and muskets from the rain, but the untrained Indian troops, despite French help, were unable to do the same. When the rain stopped, the British still had firepower, while the weapons of their opponents needed a long time to dry. At 14:00 the British began their offensive. Mir Jafar announced the retreat. At 17:00, the retreat turned into a rout.

Robert Clive meets with Mir Jafar after the battle.

The victory at Plassey predetermined the English conquest of Bengal, so it is customary to begin the countdown of British rule in the Indian subcontinent from it. The confrontation between the British and the French in India was the eastern theater of the Seven Years' War, which Churchill called the first world war in history.

Prehistory. In the 1750s, having created a combat-ready army from local soldiers (sepoys) trained according to the French model, the French captain, and later the brigadier Charles Joseph Bussy-Castelnau, became the de facto ruler of southern India; the ruler of Hyderabad was completely dependent on him. In opposition to the French, the British developed their base to the northeast, in Bengal. In 1754, an agreement was signed between the French and British East India Companies that neither of them would interfere in the internal affairs of India (formally subordinate to the Great Mogul).
In 1756, the Nawab of Bengal, Alivardi Khan, died, and his grandson Siraj ud-Daula took the throne, attacked Fort William in Calcutta, the main English settlement in Bengal, and captured it on June 19, 1756. On the same night, from June 19 to 20, many Englishmen from among the prisoners were tortured to death in the "black pit". In August news of this reached Madras, and the British General Robert Clive, after great delay, departed for Calcutta on board one of the ships of the squadron under the command of Admiral Watson. The squadron entered the river in December and appeared before Calcutta in January, after which the city quickly passed into the hands of the British.
When information about the outbreak of war in Europe arrived in Madras and Pondicherry at the beginning of 1757, the French governor Leiry, despite the favorable situation, did not dare to attack Madras, preferring to obtain an agreement on neutrality from the British representatives. Siraj ud-Daula, who opposed the British, sent an offer to the French in Chandannagar to join him, but he was refused help. Enlisting French neutrality, Clive went on a campaign and defeated the Nawab. The Nawab immediately sued for peace and offered an alliance to the British, relinquishing all claims. The proposal was accepted, after which, having secured their rear, the British began hostilities against the French.
In 1769, the French company ceased to exist. Some of the company's trading posts (Pondicherry and Shandannagar) remained under French control until 1949.
Danish East India Company- a Danish trading company that carried out trade with Asia in 1616-1729 (with a break).
It was established in 1616 on the model of the Dutch East India Company. The largest shareholder of the company was King Christian IV. Upon creation, the company received a monopoly on maritime trade with Asia.
In the 1620s, the Danish crown acquired a stronghold in India - Tranquebar, which later became the center of the company's trading activity (Fort Dansborg). In its heyday, together with the Swedish East India Company, it imported more tea than the British East India Company, 90% of which was smuggled to England, which brought her huge profits.

Fort Dunsborg in Tranquebar.

Due to poor economic performance, the company was abolished in 1650, but re-established again in 1670. By 1729 the Danish East India Company fell into decline and was finally abolished. Soon, many of its shareholders became members of the Asiatic Company, formed in 1730. But in 1772 it lost its monopoly, and in 1779 Danish India became a crown colony.
The Ostend Company is an Austrian private trading company, established in 1717 in Ostend (Southern Netherlands, part of the Austrian Empire) for trade with the East Indies.
The success of the Dutch, British and French East India Companies encouraged merchants and shipowners of Ostend to establish a direct commercial link with the East Indies. A private trading company in Ostend was formed in 1717, and several of its ships went to the East. Emperor Charles VI encouraged his subjects to invest in the new venture, but did not grant a patent. In the early stages, the company achieved some success, but neighboring states actively interfered with its activities, so in 1719 the Ostend merchant ship with rich cargo was captured by the Dutch off the coast of Africa and another one by the British off Madagascar.
Despite these losses, the Ostend people stubbornly continued the enterprise. The opposition of the Dutch forced Charles VI to hesitate for some time to satisfy the petitions of the company, but on December 19, 1722, the emperor granted the Ostendites a patent letter granting thirty years the right to trade in the East and West Indies, as well as on the shores of Africa. Contributions quickly flowed into the enterprise, two trading posts were opened: in Koblom on the Coromandel coast near Madras and in Bankibazar in Bengal.
The Dutch and the British continued to resist the growing competitor. The Dutch appealed to the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648, under which the Spanish king forbade the inhabitants of the Southern Netherlands to trade in the Spanish colonies. The Dutch insisted that the Treaty of Utrecht in 1713, according to which the Southern Netherlands went to Austria, did not cancel this ban. However, the Spanish government, after some hesitation, concluded a trade agreement with Austria and recognized the Ostend Company. The answer to this treaty was the unification of Great Britain, the United Provinces and Prussia into a defensive league. Fearing such a powerful alliance, the Austrians decided to give in. As a result of an agreement signed in Paris on May 31, 1727, the emperor withdrew the patent letter of the company for seven years, in exchange for which the opponents of the Ostendites recognized the imperial Pragmatic Sanction of 1713.
The company nominally existed for some time in a state of prohibition and soon closed. The Austrian Netherlands did not participate in maritime trade with the Indies until their unification with Holland in 1815.

Swedish East India Company, created in the XVIII century to conduct maritime trade with the countries of the East.
In Sweden, the first trading companies, modeled on foreign ones, began to emerge as early as the 17th century, but their activities were not very successful. Only in the 18th century did a company appear that could rightly be called the East India Company.
Its foundation was the result of the abolition of the Austrian East India Company in 1731. Foreigners who hoped to profit from participating in the lucrative colonial trade turned their attention to Sweden. The Scot Colin Campbell, together with the Gothenburger Niklas Sahlgren, turned to Commissioner Henrik Koenig, who became their representative before the Swedish government.
After preliminary discussions in the government and at the Riksdag, on June 14, 1731, the king signed the first privilege for a period of 15 years. She gave Henrik König and his companions the right, for a moderate fee, to the crown to carry out trade with the East Indies, namely "in all ports, cities and rivers on the other side of the Cape of Good Hope." Ships sent by the company had to sail exclusively from Gothenburg and return there after sailing in order to sell their cargo at a public auction. She was allowed to equip as many ships as she wanted, with the only condition that they had to be built or bought in Sweden.
The company was managed by a directorate, which included at least three persons versed in trade. In the event of the death of one of the directors of the company, the remaining ones had to elect a third. Only Swedish subjects who professed the Protestant faith could be directors.
Already at the very beginning of its existence, the company faced obstacles that were put in place by foreign competitors and its domestic opponents.
The first equipped ship of the company was captured by the Dutch in the Sound, but was soon released. An attempt to gain a foothold in India was even less successful. In September 1733, the company laid a trading post in Porto Novo on the Coromandel Coast, but already in October it was destroyed by troops equipped by the English governor of Madras and the French governor of Pondicherry. All goods were confiscated, and the subjects of the English king who were there were arrested. In 1740, the British government agreed to pay £12,000 in compensation to the company.
For Gothenburg, which was the seat of the company, the East India trade served as an impetus for rapid development. Expensive Indian and Chinese goods - mainly silk, tea, porcelain and spices - were sold at busy auctions and then dispersed throughout Europe, occupying a fairly significant place in Swedish exports.

I shared with you the information that I "dug up" and systematized. At the same time, he has not become impoverished at all and is ready to share further, at least twice a week. If you find errors or inaccuracies in the article, please let us know. E-mail: [email protected] I'll be very thankful.

In the XIV-XV centuries, Indian and Chinese goods began to be imported into Europe. Jewelry, spices and other rare outlandish things immediately attracted the attention of European merchants.

The Portuguese and Dutch were the first to explore the Indian coast. They took control of all known trade routes to the coast of India and even built their own ports and warehouses there. The trade in Indian clothes and spices turned out to be such a profitable and successful business that the British and French rushed to join this niche. Europe's interest in India first enriched the country and led it to a rapid economic recovery, but very soon the heyday gave way to a complete decline both economically and politically.

In 1600, by order of the queen, the East India Joint Stock Company was founded, ousting Dutch, Portuguese and French merchants from India. Thus, the British not only received a trade monopoly, but were also able to control the political life in the country.

british India

By the middle of the nineteenth century, England controlled almost the entire territory of India, dividing it into three large presidencies. Wealthy local princes were now subjects of the empire and were forced to pay huge taxes. At the same time, small principalities managed to maintain their independence from British India, but such free states remained in the minority and did not have the strength to resist the East India Company.

Politics England on the territories colonies

The colonization of India by England had an extremely negative impact on the economic condition of the country. The East India Company worked exclusively to export all valuable goods, and the country was heavily taxed. The conduct of such a policy very quickly turned India into a very poor country. Poverty led to disease among the local population. Only in Bengal in 1770, about 10 million inhabitants died of starvation.

Indian peasants also found themselves in an extremely deplorable state. The British government was constantly experimenting with land taxes, trying to collect as many taxes as possible from the peasants. As a result, this led to the rapid decline of agriculture in India. The situation was also exacerbated by the incredible corruption and inactivity of local and state courts: proceedings could drag on for months and years. Once strong Indian communities weakened and disintegrated.

gaining independence

The first war of India to liquidate the East India Company broke out in 1857-1859 - it was the Sepoy or Indian popular uprising. The war against the colonialists was not crowned with success, but became the first serious step of the Indian people on the road to liberation. India gained full independence only after the Second World War in 1947. Today, the state is the second largest in the world in terms of population and the seventh in terms of territory. is still included in the list of 22 official languages ​​spoken in India.

British influence in India began with the formation of small trading posts and ended with complete control over the subcontinent, which, however, did not last long.

British footholds in India

Following the example of Portugal and Holland, a group of British merchants in 1599 established the East India Company, which the very next year received from Queen Elizabeth a monopoly on the trade of England with India. By the beginning of the 17th century, the merchant society was trying to establish itself on the subcontinent through numerous trips. And, finally, he succeeded. In 1619, a trading post (factory) was established in the city of Surat, and between 1634 and 1639, simultaneously with the fort of St. George, a second trading post was created - in Madras.

In the period up to 1647, almost 30 trading posts arose and, although the Dutch, Portuguese and local Mughals resisted - from 1688 to 1691 it even resulted in a fight with the Mughal ruler Aurangzeb - the English East India Company continuously expanded its area of ​​\u200b\u200boperations until the end of the century . On both coasts of the subcontinent, many small trading posts were created, and Madras, Bombay and Fort William in Calcutta turned into large cities.

The Rise of Britain and the Rise of Its Influence in India

Despite the increasing trading activity in India in the 17th century and the increase in the number of British settlements, Great Britain itself did not represent any significant or political power. It was only after the death of Aurangzeb in 1707, as the Mughal empire gradually began to crumble, that the British stepped up their efforts to fill the power vacuum. The French East India Company, founded in 1664, increased its wealth and territory, and constantly increased the number of troops. TO early XVIII centuries, European conflicts in which the British, changing allies, fought against the French, spread to overseas territories. Rivalry grew, and power struggles gradually became inevitable. At first it seemed that the French were winning, as in 1744 they occupied Madras. but

in 1751 the wheel of fortune turned in the opposite direction. Robert Clive, formerly a clerk in the bureau of the English East India Company, captured the French fortification of Arcot with a small detachment of English and Indian soldiers. In 1756, the conflict spilled over to the north: the Nawab of Siraj-ud-Daula, the ruler of Bengal, captured Fort William and imprisoned its inhabitants. Most of the captives died, which is why today they remember the “black hole of Calcutta”.

By this time, Robert Clive was already governor of Fort St. David. In 1757 he took Fort William and Chandernagor, the most important stronghold of the French in India. Thus, the threat from the French was eliminated. At the Battle of Plassey, Clive's army defeats the troops of Sirad-ja-ud-Daula. In this she was helped by the political intrigues started by Clive and the attraction of Mir-Jafar, one of the generals of Siraj, to her side. Clive made Mir-Jafar a Nabob, but demanded a lot of money for this privilege. Thus, the East India Company actually became the property of Bengal: it levied taxes, led the Mughal military detachments, and turned from a trading organization into a political instrument of power. In 1765, Clive returned to Bengal already in the position of governor and the rank of commander in chief, which he had been awarded in England. This was the first stone laid in the foundation of the future British-Indian empire.

Central office of the Netherlands East India Company in Hooghly, Bengal, 1665

British conquests

Although starting in 1757 the British East India Company began to create the foundations of the state, its employees were not ready to govern this state. Therefore, in Great Britain, starting in 1767, voices began to be heard calling for the nationalization of possessions in India. When a famine threatened the very existence of the company in 1769-1770, the state came to its aid. However, the condition was set that the company would gradually transfer its powers to the British government. The Regulatory Act of 1773, the so-called Indian Bill, and the Indian Act of 1784 brought the company under the control of Parliament. Based on these laws, the government installed governors-general and thus created a system of dual control that lasted until 1858.

The subsequent period is characterized by British expansionist aspirations. This is either the conclusion of agreements on mutual assistance, or conquest. The policy of "Treaty of Mutual Assistance" led to the formation of seemingly independent states, which were ruled by local chiefs. However, most of their power was transferred to the company - this, first of all, concerned military and foreign policy issues. The base of "British India" was mainly the territories annexed during the hostilities.

Governors General Warren Hastings, Lord Cornwell and William Bentinck attempted to "calm down, civilize and improve" their subjects by reforming the education and justice system and strengthening the rule of law. English began to be used in legal proceedings, and attempts at Christianization allowed the Indians to abandon some social and religious customs.

After successful military campaigns against the Misor Sultan (1799), Marathas (1818) and Sikhs (1845-1848), and the subsequent annexation of other areas by the Governor-General Dalhousie Canning in 1849, the British occupation of India was largely completed. Almost all of India was directly or indirectly ruled by the East India Company. Since 1851, the country's infrastructure began to develop. Telegraphs and a network of railways arose, as well as an improved irrigation system. All this helped to give work to the Indians and other nationalities. Some Indians were loyal to the British, or at least tolerated their rule. However, continued annexation, high taxes, and the danger of losing their own cultural traditions to Western influence kept much of the Indian population at a distance.

Sepoy Rebellion of 1857

On May 10, 1857, a sepoy rebellion broke out near Delhi, hired soldiers of the British army. They started a general uprising against the British. The reason for it was rumors that soldier's ammunition was processed using pork and beef fat, which offended the religious feelings of Muslims and Hindus. However, such outrage was most likely a reaction to the rapid change in lifestyle and modernization that the British began to plant on the Ganges.

In addition, the Muslims tried, albeit unsuccessfully, to revive the Mughal dynasty. A year later, the British, with the help of Indian troops loyal to them, crushed the rebellion. Following this, the last ruler of the Mughal dynasty, Bahadur Shah, appeared before the court. He was convicted and exiled to Burma. This was the end of the Mughal empire. Another consequence of the rebellion, which was the first serious threat to British domination in India, was the dissolution of the British government of the East India Company and the transfer of government functions into their own hands. India became crown land and governors-general became viceroys. This was the beginning of the reign of Queen Victoria.

British Ascendancy and Indian Nationalism

In 1877, Queen Victoria was proclaimed Empress of India and promised to improve the welfare of her subjects and rule them in accordance with British law. However, the distrust of the British government, expressed by the 1857 rebellion, was already deeply rooted in the people. The British also behaved in isolation towards the Indian population. Therefore, Victorian India was divided: on the one hand, the Indians and the British, who kept their distance, and on the other hand, the desire for close cooperation in work and tolerance. Many of the reforms of the 19th century allowed Indians to expand their participation in political processes. National self-consciousness began to revive, hopes arose for the creation of their own government. In 1885, the Indian National Congress party was established, which enabled Indians to actively participate in the life of the state; The Government of India Act was passed and the Morley-Minto Reforms of 1909 were passed, under which Indians were recognized as having a right to participate in the drafting of laws.

However, nationalistic tendencies also began to appear in the ranks of the party: in Bengal and other places, armed revolutionaries carried out attacks on British institutions and officials. At the same time, the strategy of mass peaceful disobedience and the rejection of any joint work as effective forms of protest was tested for the first time. During the First World War, in which many Indian soldiers participated, and immediately after it, it seemed that further recognition of the rights and constitutional reforms of 1917 and 1919 would inevitably result in Indian self-government. However, in 1919, the British responded to the resistance shown by the use of force: during the riots in Amritsar, almost 400 unarmed Indians were killed by troops. In response, political leaders such as Mahatma Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru called for mass protests, from which a general movement against British rule was born.