British Rule in India

Preface

British Rule in India is an unconventional book because it seeks to identify the colonial ideational vision that persisted in independent India. A careful review of the debates in the Constituent Assembly confirms that the British mould of liberalism played a crucial role in shaping the 1950 Constitution. Not only was the Assembly established under the guidance of the 1946 Cabinet Mission, but it also incorporated core liberal values into the Constitution, which came into effect in 1950 when India became a republic. Despite debates, there was near unanimity among the framers that liberal constitutionalism was perhaps the best way to keep India united. Alternatives were proposed but did not gain sufficient support from key figures to determine what was suitable for a young nation like India. The main point is that the Indian polity retained features of colonial-era governance. This argument should be tempered, as the goal is not to criticise the core constitutional principles but to understand why they came to be.

The discussion presented in a discursive manner reveals that constitutional liberalism evolved naturally, presumably because it was never regarded as an alien conceptual framework, even by the nationalists who fought fiercely to end colonialism. Instead, it was an ideological priority that sharpened their critique of colonialism. It is therefore argued that colonialism in India to create your own Frankenstein’s monster, which not only challenged its foundations but also helped develop a strong voice against its creator. Gandhi’s Satyagraha had different ideological origins, although its manifestation as a counter to colonial rule followed liberal constitutional methods. This was not accidental; it was based on serious thought on his part, since he began his campaign against racism in South Africa in the late nineteenth century. In other words, it was a new model of opposition rooted in the fundamental ethos of Western liberalism, supporting the constitution as the ultimate authority.

Colonialism caused significant harm to India. While initially viewed as a way to spread Enlightenment principles globally, it was often associated with oppression, as colonisers exploited subjugated populations for their own benefit. British colonialism in India was no exception. However, Enlightenment ideals rooted in care, compassion, and empathy inspired Indian nationalists. In reality, colonialism distorted these values, as those claiming Enlightenment influence often strayed from principles promoting human well-being. This was notably evident during the impeachment trial of Warren Hastings, Governor-General of India, in the late eighteenth century. Edmund Burke and his allies criticised Hastings for actions that did not align with Enlightenment values. As a result, Enlightenment philosophy provided Indian nationalists with a framework to critique colonisers, revealing their failure to uphold their ideological commitments. It can be argued that Indian nationalists harnessed the Enlightenment vision to support their nationalist goals. Despite his loyalty to Britain, Gandhi opposed colonialism both in South Africa and India, criticising the British government’s indifference to the values underlying British authority. He was shocked by the mistreatment of Indians by racist rulers in South Africa and led a strong non-violent campaign against corruption in colonial India. His stance gained support in England, where his argument that oppressive rulers in India should be restrained resonated with many.

In an argumentative manner, the book supports the main claim that British rule in India was ideationally influential. Nearly two hundred years of colonial domination created visions that naturally contributed to the development of an ecosystem in which opposing views never threatened the primary ideational priority. With the decline of other European powers in India, apart from a few pockets within the Empire, the British established their hegemony, which they broke in 1947 on their terms. Therefore, it is not entirely unreasonable to argue that India gained independence through a ‘voluntary’ transfer of power, as it was only possible after the British Parliament approved the 3^rd June Plan, which endorsed India’s independence following the 1947 partition and accepted the Muslim demand for an independent Muslim state of Pakistan.

The book would not have been possible without the support and personal care of Indrani Dutta, Acquisitions Editor at Peter Lang. I am grateful to her and the other team members who also contributed to bringing this text to the readers. My family helped sustain my academic zeal despite regular warnings not to do what is ‘politically incorrect’ or to say what raises the eyebrows of those who prefer to be on the right side of the pendulum. Being naturally contrarian, I often do what others see as ‘avoidable’. They might be correct from their perspective, which unfortunately often differs from mine. Inspired by Rabindranath Tagore’s encouraging words, ‘If there is no one with you, you should not stop’, I am driven by a resilient spirit to continue despite potential backlash. I see this as a passing era of delusion. As a hopeful optimist, I believe that light exists at the end of the tunnel, even if I may not be there to witness the dawn of an era of justice and fairness.

Bidyut Chakrabarty
March 2026, Delhi

Introduction

Colonialism was not an accident of history. It was an outcome of a peculiar unfolding of historical processes in which the role of coercive power was not insignificant. Colonisers were stronger than the colonised due to the emergence of circumstances in which the former gained, while the latter was weak. One of the reasons the British colonial authority won was not its superior striking capacity alone, but also a combination of factors, including the betrayal of prominent individuals, Mir Jafar’s (1691–1765) decision to withdraw from the 1757 battle of Plassey, and the failure to combat the conqueror effectively. Historians have long debated why India was lost to the British. It was also established beyond doubt that the continuity of colonial rule was also due to the British success in building a solid network of support for colonialism. The voice against India’s colonisation was muzzled with the consolidation of a powerful state in alliance with loyal partners. The situation was dismal. In the context of occasional violent attacks on the British rulers and their cohorts, the colonisers devised a policy to effectively address nationalist angst. Given their belief that constitutional liberalism was a successful model, the conquerors brainwashed powerful public intellectuals into arguing in its favour. A new phase in Indian nationalism began. At the outset, the prominent law practitioners were chosen to lead the organisation, the Indian National Congress, which came into being in 1885 under the aegis of a retired British civil servant, AO Hume. It gradually became a forum for listing indigenous grievances, which were then sent to the rulers for redress. Besides liaising with the British authority, the Indian National Congress was reduced to a platform for an annual sponsored get-together of the members of the nationalist organisation, who were mainly lawyers. Within the organisation, the resolutions were generally approved without much discussion, indicating that they had been drafted in consultation with the rulers. There was none who attended the meeting had the courage to question what had already been endorsed. Furthermore, the early Congress activists also believed that India’s well-being was possible under British suzerainty. It was thus not surprising that the Congress became, at least at the beginning of its functioning as a nationalist forum, a stooge of the British.

Nonetheless, a few members did not appear happy with the blind acceptance of what they were asked to do for their own benefit. The argument was, as they felt, inherently wrong because a colonial power was basically exploitative. As a minority, their voices were never allowed to come to light. The purpose here is not to elaborate on how the Congress functioned in a particular fashion and why it did so; the aim is to conceptualise the responses of the early Congressmen with reference to the context in which it was articulated. In other words, what is reinforced here is the claim that their servility was situation-specific. They represented a genre of nationalist history in which such responses were likely. Despite the fact that most Congress members were hardly disappointed, there were also dissenters, who grew in importance as history unfolded. This is useful to capture the changing nature of the Congress. A servile Congress became a voice of protest over time. A parallel can be drawn here. At the dawn of colonialism, Rammohun Roy stood by the colonisers as they brought with them a powerful political will to combat the obscurantist and brutal customs. The 1829 Sati Act not only outlawed such a heinous system of demeaning humanity but also ushered in an era which recognised women’s rights as well. The 1856 Age of Consent Bill was another legal step with an identical aim. Similarly, the fact that nationalists accepted the Congress as their platform for mobilisation against the British also confirmed that the British initiative in forming the Congress was neither objectionable nor anti-national. There were hardly any voices for dismantling the Congress. Not only did it provide a common template for the nationalists from the very beginning, but it also adapted itself to serve the nation’s interests. Many nationalist platforms emerged during the nationalist campaign. But the National Congress was the fulcrum of nationalist protests. Politico-ideologically, it was a great achievement for the colonisers since the existence of the Congress as the pivot of the nationalist struggle also meant the perpetuation of similar ideological beliefs that came to India as an appendage of colonialism. The voice of opposition that the mainstream nationalists refined hardly deviated from constitutional liberalism. Except during the 1942 Quit India Movement, the Indian nationalist offensive was largely consistent with the core values of constitutional liberalism. A scan of the growth and unfolding of the Congress as a nationalist platform corroborated the contention beyond doubt. This is not to applaud colonialism as an effective mechanism for India’s betterment, but to argue that it was instrumental in articulating ‘a nationalist language’ and ‘mode of challenge’ which did not defy the canons of liberal constitutionalism to a significant extent. What it implied was an articulation of an ideological voice that was not exactly indigenous; it also fostered a design rooted in Western experiences. The removal of colonialism reinforced the point that the Indian efforts were an outcome of a creative blending of both indigenous and exogenous inputs. This is a reasonable approach, as ideas were transferred from one hemisphere to the other, which became far more frequent with the easing of transport.

Based on the assumption that colonialism was an ideational revolution, this exercise is intended to grasp the processes that led to dehumanising humanity at one level; at another, provoked many to evolve designs for refashioning humanity against the colonisers, who were determined to be exploitative and brutal in realising their exclusive gains. On the one hand, it was, by nature, torturous since by being coercive, the colonisers extracted what they intended to do; on the other hand, in order to combat colonialism as a mode of exploitation and denial, it also contributed to the generation of public angst, which got translated into campaigns and movements for its liquidation.

Historically, as Eric Hobsbawm and many others with similar ideological inclinations have pointed out, colonialism was preceded by trade between nations. With the Industrial Revolution, the global scene underwent a sea change. The industrialised nations of Western Europe changed their strategies by permanently colonising those countries that failed to effectively combat them. Justifying their acts as necessary to modernise these countries, the colonisers actually pursued their exclusive missions. The colonised became objects of exploitation, the colonisers became the exploiters. The system appeared appropriate because the vanquished nations had no choice but to surrender to the whims of those who proved stronger, driven by a complex interplay of socio-economic and political factors. They were thus dialectically interlinked because colonies not only provided cheap raw materials for industry but also a ready-made market for the goods produced. It was of help to the colonised in two ways: on the one hand, by making the useful goods, clothes, etc., available to the colonised, the colonisers evolved the image of being indispensable to the former, and, on the other hand, in so doing, they also killed the local entrepreneurs who flourished before the onset of colonialism. Such an efficient strategy worked well for the colonisers since it created, on the one hand, the need for their continuity as they were suppliers of goods which were cheap and relatively better than homemade stuff; and, on the other hand, it demoralised the local producers, which had a long-term impact on the growth of the nation.

Edward Said highlighted another significant dimension of colonialism by conceptualising ‘orientalism’. Colonialism fostered a mindset inferior to that of the conquerors. It evolved in a very subtle way. Once colonial hegemony was established, the colonial authorities endeavoured to inculcate a conceptual tapestry that would defend the view that the erstwhile parameters of thinking were futile, as they were dismissed as ‘archaic’ and ‘backwards-looking. Many in support of the winning power readily accepted the argument. The point needs to be qualified, since it is not entirely wrong to acknowledge that many of the ideas justifying age-old customary practices, values, and mores were anything but humanitarian. Nonetheless, one should also remember that, as they evolved a mindset in defence of colonial rule, the colonisers were also motivated to develop a mentality in its favour. This also had a long-term impact because, over time, the organically evolved indigenous ideational visions lost their salience. And the imposed or derivative discourses triumphed, underlining that the Orientalists lacked even the capacity to think, which prompted them to wholeheartedly accept what they received by being colonised. A new language emerged, emphasising that what had been there in the past was futile. The colonised were thus persuaded to accept not only the language in which a particular vision was articulated but also the vision itself. The impact of this process was dreadful, culminating in the creation and consolidation of ‘loyalists’ who were now prepared by the rulers to weed out those opposed to colonial discourses. Half the battle was thus won by changing the ecosystem in which the Western discourses prevailed over the rest. Orientalism represented a meek submission of the colonised to the colonisers’ thoughts, which is partly true since it blossomed nearly without meaningful opposition at the outset. The design, however, became a source of consternation among indigenous thinkers, who questioned the imposition of derivative discourses that were clearly organically disconnected from the prevailing socio-economic and political context. It was unacceptable to many, and efforts were made to unearth indigenous discourses that had remained hidden from public attention for obvious reasons. So, it can reasonably be argued that colonialism was as responsible for erasing past intellectual traditions as it was for helping develop a mindset that would regenerate interest in them. Reiterated here is the view that, despite being a jolt to indigenous intellectual heritage, colonialism also contributed to an intellectual reawakening. Based on the assumption that it was a basic human instinct to know what was forcibly sought to be undermined, the colonised undertook serious efforts to understand their past and why and how they lost their independent identities. Who were the culprits? And why did it happen?

As an extension of the above argument, it can now be persuasively argued that colonialism was both good and bad at the same time. Despite being ruthless so far as the colonised were concerned, the colonisers were also victims of circumstances, because their disdain for the colonised provoked the latter to develop their own model of opposition, a creative blending of both indigenous and exogenous inputs. In other words, the colonised were advantaged because they had access to derivative discourses, along with what they inherited as members of a colonised country. Ideologically, it was a unique vision because it was informed by the empowering ideas that radically transformed the West. For instance, Britain witnessed a noticeable change in the 1640 Puritan Revolution, followed by the 1688 Glorious Revolution. The rule of the Demos replaced the brutal monarchical rule; similarly, the 1789 French Revolution not only demolished the monarchy but also provided the most evocative slogans for liberty, equality and fraternity for humanity. The ideas were not novel, as they were articulated in many ancient texts; what was most fascinating was the human courage to champion their urge for liberation by couching their desires in those terms. The 1775 American Revolution was another instance that showed it was natural for human beings to raise their voices against British brutality. By insisting on the claim that ‘all men are created equal’, Thomas Jefferson (1743–1826), one of the firebrand theoreticians among his colleagues fighting against the British shackles in the US, reverberated a core concern that has inspired human beings since time immemorial. This does not require an elaboration that colonialism was a menace because colonisation was an attack on the existence of a nation as an independent entity. For the colonisers, it was primarily a design for exploitation, although they justified it differently; the British colonisers considered that colonialism was a device for humanising humanity, especially in those parts of the world where human beings were not what they were. So, those supporting colonialism in Britain felt it was a necessary step to civilise those nations that, in their view, were not. Here, one should not forget the intellectual revolution in Britain that emerged with constitutional liberalism, which drew on the principles of the Enlightenment and manifested in care, concern, and compassion. So, in theory, it was a conceptual model that was really awe-inspiring, since it was meant to contribute to humanity by inculcating ideational priorities beneficial to humanising it. What was most tragic was the transformation of colonialism as a mode of exerting authority over those who were treated as inferior, since they were vanquished by the colonisers. Such a distinction was contrary to the very principles the British colonisers championed, at least verbally, at the onset of colonial rule in India. This separation reinforced the idea that it was incumbent on subjects to abide by the rulers’ proposals. It was a one-way traffic. The colonised would remain the same unless they emulate the colonisers in all respects. Inherent here is the idea that, by being perceived as inferior by the colonised, the colonisers would remain so unless they not only reject their socio-cultural roots but also their intellectual legacy. Many of the colonised joined the bandwagon to gain or to avoid being marginalised or tortured. Whatever was witnessed in the first phase of colonialism in India was, of course, reversed as colonisers realised that they had no respite so long as they were ruled. So, it is fair to argue that opposition to colonialism was rooted in the mentality of those who faced severe difficulties as subjects of the Empire. However, colonisation was hailed by many at the outset as inspired by the philosophy of the Enlightenment.

It is, however, wrong to surmise that colonialism was free from criticism. From the very beginning, it was a mechanism of exploitation. In its early phase, the colonisers liquidated those who opposed them; they, however, rewarded those who stood by them. Rajnarayan Basu (1826–1899), a writer of repute from Bengal, in his Sekal Aar Ekal (the Past and Present), published in 1874, elaborated how the Bengali middle classes were disillusioned with colonial rulers.¹ Basu’s narrative showed that many public intellectuals felt betrayed since they believed at the beginning of colonial rule that it was a providential intervention for the country, since not only did it challenge the feudal authority, but also created a space to evolve a counter culture in support of those values which were complementary to human betterment. With their disenchantment, they generated a sentiment questioning what their predecessors had earlier endorsed in favour of colonial suzerainty. A new mode of thinking emerged.

Colonialism created its own enemy. Many came forward to champion a contrarian ideational vision, despite the likelihood that it would invite the rulers’ wrath. One must qualify the statement by noting that nationalism at its dawn was not the same as it later became, as history attests. Changes were linked to colonial responses, which grew far more ruthless as nationalism gained momentum. It did not seem unusual, because no ruler was ever quiet during an attack. This was evident as soon as the nationalists mounted their campaign by involving as many Indians as possible to harm the colonisers. This deserves attention here to understand the contradiction between colonialism and nationalism in the Indian context. First, one should not forget that colonialism was an interest-driven project and cannot be anything but just. The European nation-states undertook the hazardous voyage to discover new land, inspired at the outset by their curiosity about what lay beyond their familiar shores. In other words, at the back of their mind, it was a desire, at the outset, to know the unknown, which later transformed into an urge to generate wealth by being involved in trade. They were not content with this. As history demonstrated, their interest in trade was transformed into an urge to colonise areas they deemed vulnerable enough to surrender to their supremacy. India became their target. Many European powers fought among themselves to capture India. The British success in doing so was stupendous since they defeated the other European contenders. What is important here is to note that British colonialism was beneficial to Britain. Shashi Tharoor illustrated the point most exquisitely by saying that had India not been a source of wealth, the Industrial Revolution would not have taken place in Britain. According to him, Britain’s Industrial Revolution was built on the destruction of India’s thriving manufacturing industries. Textiles were an emblematic case in point: the British systematically set about destroying India’s textile manufacturing and exports, substituting Indian textiles with British ones manufactured in England. Ironically, the British used Indian raw material and exported the finished products back to India and the rest of the world, the industrial equivalent of adding insult to injury.²

What is clearly stated here is the view that colonialism evolved as a mode of exploitation of India for Britain’s benefit. As a result, the conquerors’ coffers were boosted enormously at India’s expense, as Tharoor argued, noting that ‘the British destruction of India’s textile competition led to the first great deindustrialisation of the modern world’.³ Colonialism did not thus create a level playing field; instead, it was heavily tilted in favour of the colonisers by virtue of its strength at a particular juncture in history. Secondly, it is entirely wrong to assume that all welcomed colonialism; only the beneficiaries appreciated the British conquest because what they failed to do for their personal gain in the erstwhile regime was a source of their disappointment and anger. With the replacement of the regime that had impeded the realisation of their exclusive aims, these forces became prominent, particularly in Bengal. Many scholars argue that British colonialism helped create space for opponents who did not join those who celebrated the victory. Manu Pillai, while substantiating the point, thus argues that it was realised by many that