Modern history notes

Modern Indian History Class 01

Discussion regarding syllabus of modern Indian history (5:07 PM)

The decline of the Mughals.
Rise of Regional powers:
Autonomous states like Rajputs, Mysore, and Travancore.
Rebel states like Marathas, Jats, Sikhs, Afghans, etc.
Successor states like Hyderabad, Bengal, Awadh, etc.
Why did Marathas not become an all-Indian power?
How did the British become an All-India power?
Rise of Indian national movement.

Ist Battle of Panipat, 1526 (5:53 PM)

It was fought between Zahiruddin Babur Vs Ibrahim Lodhi(the Lodhi dynasty was the last empire of the Delhi sultanate).
Babur was in search of a kingdom for himself and this battle was the culmination of conflicts between Babur and Lodhi.
It was the first major battle where gunpowder and field artillery(small bronze canon) was used, which is why Babur won despite a small army.
Therefore Babur founded the Mughal empire in 1526.

2nd battle of Panipat, 1556 (6:22 PM)

Fought between Akbar (13 years old, the army was led by his guardian Bairam Khan) and Hemchandra Vikramaditya of Rewari or Hemu (the most important minister and military general of the Suri dynasty).
Babar was succeeded by Humayun who was defeated by Afghan invader Shershah Suri(set up the rule of the Suri dynasty, 1540-55).
In 1555, Humayun defeated Suris but then died in 1556, and now Hemu recaptured power.
Therefore the 2nd battle of Panipat was fought by Akbar to establish the Mughal empire in India.

Mughal emperor chronology (6:48 PM)

Babar (1526-30).
Humayun (1530-40)
Akbar (1556-1605).
Jahangir (1605-1627).
Sahajhan (1628-58).
Arungbzeb (1658-1707).
Bahadur Shah (1707-1712).
Jahandar Shah (1712-1713).
Farruksiyar (1713-19).
Muhammad Shah (1719-1748).
Ahmed Shah Bahadur (1748-1754).
Alamgir-II (1754-59).
Shah Alam (1760-1806).
Akbar-II (1806-1837).
Bahadur Shah Jafar (1837-1857).

Mansabdari system (7:11 PM)

It was the military bureaucracy system of the Mughals established by the Akbar.
That is officials had dual functions of civil and military functions.
Mansab is a post/office and Mansabdar is the holder or occupant of Mansabs.
There were two types of Mansbdars on basis of the mode of salary.
Naqadi Mansabdar:
They were paid a salary in cash.
Jagirdar Mansabdar:
They were paid in the form of allocating a Jagir.
The land revenue from the Jagirs (land) went to the Jagirdar.
Jagir is a land whose land revenue goes to Jagirdar and Jagirdar is the holder of Jagir.
Jagir was of two types:
Tankha Jagirs:
These jagirs could be transferred from one to another Mansabdar(could be taken away from the Mansabdar by the king).
All of the revenue goes to Mansabdar.
Vatan Jagirs:
The word Vatan means hereditary.
It was given permanently to a person and becomes heredity Jagir.
It is non-transferable.
10% of land revenue from Vatan Jagir went to the king as tribute/Peshkash.
As here king gave up the right to take away Jagir, therefore needs to be compensated and tribute acted as Vatan Jagirdar recognizing the sovereign authority of the king.
The criteria for becoming Mansabdar was lineage(family background).
Every Mansabdar had a dual rank.
Zat:
It was a personal Rank.
Sawar:
It is the number of Horsemen a Mansabdar is required to Maintain for the king.
For example- Zat=3000 and Sawar=1500 then net rank=4500.
The emoluments of Mansabadar were equal to his salary and allowance for the maintenance of the army as per his Sawar.
More important nobles were Jagirdar Mansabdar and less important ones were Naqadi Mansabdars.
Vatan Jagirs were given to those who were very powerful Mansabdars.
Corrupt Mansabadar would not maintain an army as per Sawar, therefore would try to make personal, money to be ideally spent on the army or over-extracted land revenue from Jagir.
Mughal emperors are dependent on Mansabdars for the Maintainance of the army.
therefore in the Mansabdari system, a give-and-take relationship existed between the king and Mansabdar.
The king gave Mansab and Jagir and in return Mansabdar gave his loyalty and maintained the army of the king.
Therefore there existed personal loyalty and if the king does not give the desired Mansabs and Jagirs then it may lead to disloyalty towards the king.

The topic of the next class: Khalisa land and Land revenue system.

Modern Indian History Class 02

Khalisa land (5:17 PM)

The land of the kingdom was Jagirs (transferable and non-transferable or Tankha and Vatan).
Khalisa land was the royal land and the land revenue of this land went to King.

The land revenue system of the Mughals (5:28 PM)

Zamindars - Zamindars collected Land revenue and had police duties and in return for their service, they got a commission.
Therefore Zamindar was not the owner of the land from which he collected Land revenue.
Zamindar had Vatan(hereditary) right of revenue collection.
He would collect Land revenue from others' land but would also pay land revenue from his lands( which were called Milkiyat).
Nankar lands - These were the land of Zamindars which were declared tax-free/revenue-free in return for providing service of revenue collection.
Primary Zamindars - They collected land revenue from peasants/ryots/ actual cultivators.
He also collected Abwab(additional levies) over and above the land revenue from peasants.
Ryots paid land revenue as per the recorded % in Pattas(documents), therefore Patta system prevented over-extraction.
Intermediary zamindars - They collected land revenue from the Primary Zamindars.
Then passed it on to Jagirdars or the state.
Peasants were of 2 kinds:
Khudkasht - Those with occupancy rights.
They could not be removed from the land they cultivated.
They kept occupancy rights as customary/traditional rights since they had cultivated a particular piece of land continuously for a long time.
Pahikashts - They were landless, rightless peasants.
They did not have occupant rights as were Vagrant peasants, that is cultivated different lands in different seasons.

Ijaradari system (6:18 PM)

Here the right to collect the revenue was auctioned to the highest bidder.
Those who won the auction were called Ijaradars.
They were men of money like merchants and moneylenders, who were outsiders to the traditional rural economy.
They would collect land revenue but may also collect taxes on shopkeepers and merchants, over and above for winning the auction.
He may pay revenue in advance to Jagirdar or the state and later collect it from the areas or may pay partially in advance and rest later.
If he failed to submit the agreed amount then the right to collect revenue could be reauctioned.
Jahandar Shah introduced the Ijaradari system and it grew during Aurangzeb and spread rapidly in the 18th century.
It was introduced by Jahandar shah (1712-13) in Punjab and Bengal, later in Awadh and Hyderabad.
Farukksiyar introduced it even in Khalisha land.
Under the British, it was introduced as a Farming system in 1772 in Bengal and Ijaradar was called a revenue farmer who won the right to collect land revenue in the auction.
The Ijaradari system was introduced when there was a shortfall in revenue collection or when the Jagirdar of the state wanted to maximize land revenue collection.

The decline of Mughals (6:53 PM)

Role of Aurangzeb - Continues warfare- Mughal empire reached its territorial peak, however, seeds of decline were also sown, during Aurangzeb's reign.
Aurangzeb engaged in continuous warfare for roughly 40 years, which drained resources for the Mughal empire due to the high cost of war.
These wars also hurt overland trade due to a decline in production and law and order instability.
These wars also increased the economic burden on Mansabdars, who were required to maintain an army for the emperor, therefore wars contributed to the economic decline of the Mughals.
Aurangzeb wanted to capture the whole of Deccan and annexed Golconda in 1687 and Bijapur in 1685(The two autonomous Muslim kingdoms).
However he failed to defeat the Marathas convincingly, and by 1705 Marathas began winning after 1707, they reversed most territorial gains of Aurangzeb in 1st half of the 18th century.
Therefore in the end these wars proved futile.
Therefore Marathas became reasons for the military and territorial decline of the Mughals.
The religiously decisive policy of Aurangzeb:
They alienated the mass, for example, the application of Jizya on non-muslim(an additional tax) and not preparing temples, and reducing the allocation of land to temples.
He also demolished some important Hindu temples.
Aurangzeb executed important leaders which contributed to the alienation of the masses.
For example, the 9th Guru Tegbahadur for Sikhs was executed in 1675, and Sambhaji(elder son of Shivaji) was executed after 3 weeks of torture in 1689.
Both also refused conversion to Islam.
Institutional failure/governance failure:
Impersonal loyalty could not develop in the Mansabdari system, which was the core of the Mughal system.
Therefore what existed was personal loyalty to the king which is a Parton(Mughal emperor)-client(Mansabdars) relationship, that is a give-and-take relationship.
Where Patron gave Mansabs and Jagirs and in return, clients gave loyalty and an army.
Post-Aurangzeb, weak Mughal emperors failed to maintain the balance of power in the Mughal court among Mansabdars.
Therefore failed to keep Mandabdars under control.
If the king was unable to satisfy Mansabdars with desired Jagirs and Mansabs, then disloyalty among Mansabdars took root.

The topic of the next class: The decline of Mughals to continue.

Modern Indian History Class 03

The decline of the Mughals (continued) (5:05 PM)

Military weakness:
Mughal state was a military state (not a nation-state, a nation is people who feel while the country is a territory, the state is an organization that manages the affairs of the nation and country, a state/organization created by the people/nation is nation-state).
Poor military due to a lack of technological and organizational reforms
Weak war commanders especially after Aurangzeb.
Military corruption example of non-maintenance of the army as per Sawar due to disaffection and the Jagirdari crisis.
Fractional-ism (group politics):
Post-Aurangzeb, there were continuous succession disputes and factionalism increased.
This also led to competition between different groups of Mansabdars, like:
Irani Group- Shias and had Persian origin, Humayun took the help of the Persians for recapturing power in 1555, thus their presence as Mansabdars.
Turrani group- from the same origin as the Mughals.
Hindustani groups- converted Indian Muslims.
Deccani groups- nobles of Golconda and Bijapur who were made Mansabdars by Aurangzeb, after defeating Golconda in 1687 and Bijapur in 1685.
Hindus- mainly Rajputs.
The able Mansabdars acted selfishly and instead of strengthening the central authority, they focused on carving out their principalities.

Jagirdari crisis of 18th century (5:53 PM)

Aurangzeb annexed Golconda in 1687 and Bijapur in 1685 and then nobles of these kingdoms were coopted as Mansabdars and came to be knowns as the Deccani group
However, Aurangzeb converted most of the land in these kingdoms into the Khalisa land as he wanted to fund his future warfare against Marathas.
Therefore the number of Mansabdars while land under Jagirdari did not.
Emperor post-Aurangzeb appointed more and more Mansabdars for political reasons, that is to win the support of different groups of Mansabdars, either to come to power or to stay in power.
There was also inequity among Mandabaras as 5% of Mansabdars controlled 61% of Jagirdari lands, therefore there was insecurity among smaller Mansabdars.
In the 18th century, there was inflation in luxurious goods due to high exports to Europe by the European trading companies, as a wazir Nizam tried but failed to convince the elite Mansabdars to redistribution of Jagirs.
Now the smaller Mansabars found it hard to maintain the lifestyle, adding to insecurity.
Impact of the Jagirdari crisis of the 18th century:
Many Mansabdar stayed Jagir-less for years.
Insecurity among Jagiradrs due to the frequent transfer of jagirs to other Mansabdars, which is the insecurity of tenure of holding jagir.
Therefore now there was increased oppression of ryots and primary zamindars as Mansabdars wanted to extract as much Land revenue as possible from jagirs.
Now there is a greater spread of the Ijaradari system as Mansabdar Jagirdar tried to maximize his earnings
Due to insecurity of tenure no incentive for Jagirdar-Mansabdar to invest in the productivity of the Jagirs, therefore hurting the income of ryots.
Peasant revolts in the 18th century were the product of the Jagirdari crisis and they were led by Zamindars, who were traditional leaders of rural society
For example, the Jat kingdom set up by Churaman Jat (a Zamindar) was a product of peasant revolt, therefore Jagirdari crisis hurt political stability.
The Jagirdari crisis led to military corruption by Mansabdars, therefore contributing to the military weakness.
Group politics increased as Mansabdars competed for Jagirs even more.
The Mughal state was a military state and when the military weakened the state weakened.

The proof of the decline of the Mughal empire (7:17 PM)

Jahandar Shah came to power after executing the father of Farukksiyar who came to power with the help of the Sayyid brothers of the Hindustani group.
But then Farukksiyar wanted to free himself of control of the Sayyid brothers, therefore planning to get rid of the Sayyid brothers, who then aligned with Marathas to execute Farruksiyar in 1719 and placed Mohammad Shah in power as puppet emperor.
Nizam-Ul-Mulk of the Turani group allied with the Irani group and defeated the Sayyid brothers and restored the status of Muhammad Shah.
From 1720-24 Nizam served as wazir.
Mughal post-Aurangzeb are called Later Mughals who were weak rulers with weak personalities and not interested in administration.
For Example, Muhammad Shah came to be known as Rangeela as he spent the most time in leisure, detached from political and administrative issues.
Beginning in 1705 Marathas began defeating the Mughals.
In 1719 they were successful in placing Muhammad Shah as puppet ruler and extracted some gains.
In 1737, Peshwa Baji Rao plundered Delhi and kept Muhammad Shah captive temporarily.
Then in 1738 Marathas defeated a large Mughal army led by Nizam.
And then in 1739, they signed a treaty of Bhopal where they extracted Subha of Malwa and sovereignty over all territory between river Chambal and Narmada.
Invasion of Nadir shah:
Reasons for invasion:
In Afghanistan Nadir shah's opponents were given protection by Mughals in Mughal-controlled territory.
His messenger was held captive in Delhi.
Nadir shah wanted to plunder Indian wealth.
Reasons for Nadir shah's win:
Mughals were military weak example Marthas defeated a large Mughal army in 1738.
lack of military reforms(technology and organization)
Military corruption by Mansabdars due to the Jagirdari crisis.
Sadat Ali Khan (Nawab of Awadh) switched sides to fight alongside Nadir shah when she was not made Mir Bakshi and the Mansab was given to Nizam, therefore factionalism played a role.
The better military leadership of Nadir shah
The Decisive was the battle of Karnal, in 1739 after which Nadir shah became emperor of India for 2 months and Muhammad Shah was taken as a prisoner.
Sadat Ali Khan committed suicide when insulted post-victory by Nadir Shah.

The topic for the next class: Dictation of Impact of the Nadir Shah invasion.

Modern Indian History Class 04

Impact of Nadir shah invasion (5:10 PM)

Huge loss of prestige for the Mughals.
Muhammad Shah lost the respect of Mansabdars as did not stand up for his dignity despite insults by Nadir Shah.
Lost prestige among people as Nadir Shah massacred 2 lakh, civilians in Delhi, therefore people realized that the Mughals cannot protect them.
Loss of military prestige as it was a huge military defeat, Soon after a defeat by Marathas in 1738.
Huge economic loss and now the Mughals could not maintain a strong army.
Nadir shah took away Peacock's throne that had Kohinoor in it, a huge loot of elephants and workers, and a huge wealth worth 100 crores.
Therefore Mansabdars were also drained of wealth as they had to contribute to the loot.
It is not a coincidence that Nizam left Delhi permanently for Hyderabad in 1740 (also fear of Marathas west of Hyderabad).
Now chances of foreign invasion increased (1748-1st Afghan invasion by Abdali, 1756- 2nd Afghan invasion by Abdali, 1799-3rd Afgan invasion by Zaman Shah).

More Proofs of the decline of the Mughals(5.22 PM)

1st Afghan invasion failed, however, the fear of future invasion remained, therefore in 1752 Mughals came under the protection of Marathas, who were now the top power in India.
Shahu recognized the authority of the Mughal emperor, accepted a Mansab, and promised to maintain the army as Mansabdars.
Alamgir-II was a puppet brought to power by Marathas by interfering in succession disputes.
Therefore by the mid-18th century Marathas were top power along with strong autonomous states, that is successor states of Bengal, Hyderabad, and Awadh, Rebel states like Marathas, Sikhs, Jats, and Afghans, and Already autonomous states like Rajput, Mysore, and Travancore.
While the Mughal emperor's authority was limited to Delhi and Agra.

Successor States (5:51 PM)

They included Bengal(Murshid Quli Khan), Hyderabad(Nizam-Ul-Mulk), and Awadh(Sadat Ali Khan).
Within the Mughal empire, certain powerful nobles established themself as autonomous power centres by carving out successor states within the Mughal empire, that is they ruled autonomously but never formally broke ties with the Mughal empire.
This was because of personal ambitions in Delhi politics, that is the desire for greater influence outside their principalities by holding positions like Wazir, Mir Bakshi, etc.
They also wanted the legitimacy of the Mughal empire for better trade with the rest of the Mughal empire and the potential of military help from the rest of the Mughal empire.
These nobles after getting appointed as governors consolidated power by ending the system of checks and balances, therefore leading to over-concentration of power.
They ensured they ensured that their relatives and loyalists were appointed to important positions/Mansabs like Dewan, Deputy-Subadar, War commander, and other important positions
For example, Sadat Ali Khan got his son-in-law Safdarjung appointed as Deputy-Subadar and Murshid Quli Khan was already Dewan when he was appointed as Subadar/Nawab/Governor of Bengal Subha.
They gathered the support of economically powerful sections like intermediary Zamindars, Ijaradars/revenue farmers, merchants, moneylenders, and bankers by:
Not harassing them.
Not applying arbitrary taxes.
By proving law and order stability that was good for trade.
By Providing security of property.
Distributing Mansabs which was a new feature as traditionally men of money were not made Msabdars and nobles based on lineage dominated the Mansabdari system traditionally.
Therefore there was a rise of men of money in successor states, for example:
By 1727, 15 intermediary Zamindars were responsible for 50% of land revenue collection.
The House of Jagat Seth became a strong financial power and the Dutch describe Jagat Seth as the richest banker in the world.
Jagat Seth controlled the royal mint, acted as a banker for the nawab(loaned money to nawab), and financed trade all across India(loaned money to merchants).
In Hyderabad, the core feature of the Mansabdari system changed as men of money now dominated the Mansabdari system.
They converted Tankha Jagir into Vatan Jagir to get the support of pre-existing Mansabdars, example in Hyderabad core feature of Tankha Jagir vanished as many were converted into Vatan Jagir.
They established effective revenue administration and this increased their monetary power.
For example, Murshid Quli Khan was known for its effective revenue administration and did detailed surveys for land revenue assessment(that is identify the soil productivity, irrigation available, crops sown, past trends of land revenue collection, and area under production) before demanding land revenue.
Then they began ruling autonomously as distributed Mansabs and Jagirs without permission or reference to the Mughal emperor, and behaved autonomously in important matters like matters of war and peace, signing treaties with neighbours, domestic policies, etc.
They gradually reduced financial reporting of revenue collected to Delhi, that is books of account were not sent.
They also stopped sending revenue regularly to Delhi and later also reduced the amount of revenue and finally stop it.
Finally, these nobles established their dynastic rule, and therefore Mughal emperor lost power in the successor state, and the appointment of Mansabdars is important.
The Mughal emperor lost power to act as a patron and therefore even the Parton-client relationship that led to personal loyalty instead of impersonal loyalty also ended as the client itself became Parton.
However, power was not centralized and was shared between different segments, Nawab/subadar and men of money, and traditional Masabdars.

Rebel states (7:27 PM)

Marathas, Sikhs, Jats, and Afghans.
Marathas:
Maratha kingdom was founded by Chhatrapati Shivaji in 1674( declared himself Chhatrapati, legally independent from Mughal unlike successor states In 2nd half of the 17th century by fighting against Bijapur and Aurangzeb).
Periods in Maratha Polity:
1680-1719- period of instability after the death of Shivaji in 1680.
1719-1761- period of stability and growth.
1761 onwards- period of decline with a temporary revival in the 1770s.
1774 onwards- British influence in Maratha polity begins.
1680 onwards there was turmoil due to the death of Shivaji and the continuous warfare of Aurangzeb.
After the release of Shahu in 1707, there was a civil war.
During the civil war, Deshmukh and Maratha Sardars frequently switched sides between Tarabahi, Shahu, and Mughals.
The important role of 6th Peshwa Balaji Vishwanath was a very able leader and helped Shahu gather the support of powerful sections, support of a strong Brahmin banking family.
Support of new independent Maratha Sardars, therefore by 1719 Shahu emerged victorious leading to a period of stability and growth.
The dispute with Shivaji-II was settled via the treaty of Warna, in 1731 where he was given Kolhapur.
Peshwa was PM/Wazir and was one of the 8 ministers in the council of Chhatrapati.
Maratha sardars:
Scindia of Gwalior.
Bhonsle of Nagpur.
Holkar of Indore.
Gaekwad of Baroda.

The topic of the next class: The family tree of Marathas.

Modern Indian History Class 05

Maratha continued (5:04 PM)

Military rise of Marathas:
In 1719, Marathas allied with the Sayyid brothers of the Hindustani group to remove Farukksiyar and place Muhammad Shah as a puppet ruler.
In return they got:
Independent status in Maharashtra (Shahu recognized the authority of the Mughal emperor, therefore independent here means autonomous like successor state, that is not legally but in practice).
Chauth(1/4th of revenue) of Malwa and Gujarat.
Chauth and Serdeshmukhi (1/10th of the revenue) of 6 Mughal provinces of Deccan.
However, Nizam got rid of the Sayyid brothers and restored the status of Mohammad shah, and then became governor of Hyderabad in 1724.
Therefore Marathas lost the gains made.
In 1727-28, Baji Rao sent an army to Gujarat and extracted the right to 60% of the revenue of Gujarat from its Mughal governor.
In 1728 Baji Rao defeated Hyderabad and regained Chauth and Serdeshmukhi of Deccan.
Chauth is 1/4th of the revenue and Serdeshmukhi is 1/10th of the revenue.
Chauth was a tool of foreign policy and only applied to non-Maratha territory in return for Maratha protection, that is the protected state gave 1/4th of revenue to prevent future Maratha attacks on itself.
When the protected state could not pay Chauth anymore it lost protection and was then annexed by Marathas.
Serdeshmukhi was introduced by Chhatrapati Shivaji, Deshmukh gave 1/10th of revenue as a symbol of recognizing his authority as Serdeshmukh (head of Deshmukh).
Serdeshmukhi can be applied to Maratha and non-Maratha territories.
In 1731 Marathas defeated a joint attack by nizam and the local chiefs of Gujarat.
In 1729 captured Malwa and reached Rajasthan.
In 1736 defeated Portuguese and Ethiopian Muslims at the Konkan coast, this signified the naval strength of the Marathas.
In 1737 Bajirao plundered Delhi and kept Mohammad Fhah temporarily captive.
In 1738 Marathas defeated a large Mughal army led by Nizam and then signed the treaty of Bhopal in 1739 where they got Suba of Malwa and sovereignty over all territory between river Chambal and Narmada.
During 1745-51, Raghuji Bhonsle of Nagpur regularly attacked Bengal Suba and forced Alivardi Khan to give Orissa and Chauth of Bengal and Bihar.
Chauth was paid until 1757 after which EIC controlled Bengal Suba and Marathas lost Orissa to the British/EIC in the 2nd Anglo-Maratha war in 1803-05.
In 1751, Nana Sahib attacked Hyderabad territory in Konkan and signed the Treaty of Bhalke, where Salabat Jung gave Khandesh to Marathas.
From 1751 onwards Marathas regularly attacked Rajputs, they extracted annual tributes and interfered in succession but could never conclusively defeat Rajputs, therefore did not try for annexation.
In 1752 Mughals came under Maratha protection, due to fear of Afghan invasions(Ist Afghan invasion in 1748, 2nd in 1756-61, and 3rd in 1799).
In 1754 Marathas interfered in Mughal succession and placed Alamgir-II as puppet emperor.
In 1765 Marathas defeated Mysore and extracted tribute.
In 1766 Hyderabad gave northern Circars to EIC in return for Military protection from Marathas and Mysore.
In 1795 Battle of Kharda was the last battle between the Marathas and Hyderabad, where the Marathas emerged victorious, EIC stayed neutral as it also had a military alliance with the Marathas since the treaty of Salbai, in 1782.
In 1798 Hyderabad became the 1st state to sign a subsidiary/subordinate alliance with EIC where it lost control over foreign policy and military to EIC and return got military protection of EIC.
Marathas failed to defeat Sikhs.
Therefore by the mid-18th century Marthas emerged as the top power in India and it was the 3rd battle of Panipat that halted their rise and thereafter their decline began.

3rd battle of Panipat, 1761 (6:56 PM)

It was fought between Ahmed Shah Abdali/Durrani(he was the founder of Modern Afghanistan and of the Durrani empire, a trusted commander of Nadir Shah, declared himself king of Afghanistan after Nadir Shah's death, began 1st Afgan invasion in 1748 that failed, began 2nd Afgan invasion that concluded in 3rd battle of Panipat).
He was supported by Siuja-Ud Duala (Nawab of Awadh who wanted to weaken Marathas).
Najib-ud-Dula(ruler of Rohilkhandd).
Farrukabad under Bangash Pathan.
Jats under Surajmal temporarily supported Marathas.
Mughals (only technically) as Mughals came under Maratha protection due to fear of Afgan invasion.
Thus mainly only Marathas were on the other side.
Reasons for the battle:
The conflict between 2 rising neighbouring powers, that is Marathas in India and Abdali in Afghanistan.
In 1756 Afghan raided northern India and Abdali appointed his son Timur Shah as governor of Punjab.
Nana saheb sent his brother who defeated and removed Timur from Lahor, this was the peak of the Maratha empire.
Now nana saheb thought of making his son Vishwas Rao emperor of India.
Those Mughals who were anti-Maratha had earlier requested the help of Abdali.
Attacks by Abdali culminated in the 3rd battle of Panipat.
Why Abdali won?
A stronger alliance by Abdali- Awadh supported Abdai as it wanted to weaken the Marathas who were its rivals, therefore declined to support Marathas.
Rohillas and Bangash Pathans expected greater influence in north India if Afghani Abdali won.
Sikhs, Rajputs, and Jats stayed neutral due to constant plundering in the past by Marathas, therefore Marthas failed to convince other Indian powers.
A higher number of soldiers (60000 vs 50000).
Disunity between Maratha Sardars, for example, Bhonsle of Nagpur didn't fight, therefore factionalism played a role.
The better military leadership of Abdali.
Abdali's forces had better artillery, for example, horses mounted guns.
Abdali's forces were successful in cutting off the supply lines between Delhi and Panipat and therefore famine-like conditions existed in the Maratha camp in Panipat with no food for men and no fodder for horses, while Afghan supply routes stayed functional.
Maratha's hallmark strategy of Guerrilla warfare was not suited for the vast plain fields of Panipat.
Impact of loss:
Marathas lost important leaders like Sadashiv Rao Bhau and Viswas Rao died fighting.
While Nana Saheb died within weeks of the 3rd battle of Panipat.
Now factionalism began in Maratha Politics leading to the weakening of central authority.
Marathas got militarily weakened as they lost important leaders and 50000 men.
Abdali returned to Afghanistan with loot as there was a revolt in his army in Afghanistan(an anti-Abdali military general planned a coup in Afghanistan).
Thus 3rd battle of Panipat decided who will not rule India and not who will rule India.
Now there was a vacuum of power at the centre that was filled later by EIC by defeating multiple regional wars of India one by one.

Why were so many empires shaking battles fought in Panipat? (7:56 PM)

Battles were not fought for the city of Panipat but because this region was the gateway to Delhi.
Anyone who wanted to capture Delhi from the west had to pass through Khyber pass in Afghanistan and then enter India via Punjab.
For the ruler of Delhi strategically it was best to stop the enemy at the gates, that is in this region having Panipat, Karnal, Kurukshetra, and Thanesar.
This region had vast fields suitable for large armies.
This region had many warrior classes making military recruitment easy for the army.
The region was agriculturally productive and close to Delhi therefore easy supplies for fighting men.
Suitable weather for long battles.
Muhammad of Gazni fought in Thanesar in 1014 and his empire extended from Iran to Pakisthan by 1030.
Ghori fought Prithaviraj in Thanesar in 1191.
1st battle of Panipat led to the end of the Delhi Sultanate and the establishment of the Mughal empire.
2nd battle of Panipat led to the re-establishment of the Mughal empire.
The battle of Karnal led to Nadir Shah becoming emperor for 60 days.
The 3rd battle of Panipat prevented Maratha from becoming an all-Indian power.

The topic of the next class: Maratha administration.

Modern Indian History Class 06

Maratha administration (5:07 PM)

Maratha's empire was divided into Swarajya and Samrajya.
After Shau, Peshwa became the effective ruler as Sahu delegated too much power to the Peshwa.
Shau had an adopted son.
A treaty formally gave effective power to Peshwa.
Peshwas' capital was in Poona and his secretariate was called Hazur Daftar.
There existed a system of checks and balances on the governor as Deshmukh/revenue collectors had dual reporting to the governor as well the Peshwa.
Therefore enabling Peshwa to verify Books of accounts submitted by the governor.
Samrajya was territory outside Maharastra brought into the Maratha empire by Maratha Sardars.
Therefore was controlled by Maratha Sardars who ruled Samrajya autonomously.
However, they did not set up effective rules on the ground in the whole of Samarajya.
Peshwa had a council of 12 ministers.
Swaraj was divided into Sarkars/provinces and the office of governor was auctioned.
Patil/ village headman and Deshmukh/Revenue collectors had Vatan rights.
Patils were responsible for executive, Police, judicial, and revenue functions at the village level.
Therefore the concentration of power in Patil.
Sources of revenue were Land revenue and taxes on trade, license fees, and Judicial proceeds in form of Nazrana from the Victorious party and Jurmana from the losing party.
Further to increase revenue and peasant welfare, dams and canals were built and loans were given at cheap interest rates.
Also, there was effective supervision of revenue collectors so they do not oppress peasants.
Maratha Judiciary:
A clear hierarchy existed from the village panchayat up to the Peshwa and the final decision was of Peshwa.
However, as far as possible he respected the decision of village panchayats.
Ancient religious texts acted as laws example Dharmashastra.
There was a rule of law as even the highest authorities and men of money were punished.
Policing was as effective as the London police with a very good network of information collection and existed a rule of law:
Maratha Military:
The major force was horse mounted army with a focus on light cavalry, which was important for Maratha's guerrilla warfare tactics.
Which was a highly effective strategy of surprising the enemy with a swift attack, therefore creating shock and awe.
The navy was modernized with the help of the french(in exchange for money and Britain-France rivalry).
Why Marathas could not establish an all-Indian empire?
The rise of the Peshwa at expense of Chhatrapati increased the chances of fractionation in Martha Polity as strong Maratha Sardars asserted their autonomy more against the Peshwa.
The 3rd Battle of Panipat weakened the central authority of Peshwa as Marathas lost important leaders and now young and inexperienced Peshwas came to power, therefore increasing factionalism
Succession disputes increased factionalism.
Raghunath Rao got Narayan Rao killed in a conspiracy and then he was himself overthrown in Barbhai Conspiracy by Nana Fadnavis(an important minister in Peshwa's council).
Fractionalsim led to British interference in Martha's polity, for example:
the 1st Anglo-Maratha war began when Raghunath Rao went to EIC in Bombay for military help to regain Peshwaship.
Later the 2nd Anglo-Maratha war began when Baji Rao-II signed a Subsidiary alliance with EIC to regain Peshwaship after he was defeated and removed by Holkar of Indore in 1802.
Power could not be properly centralized as Maratha Sardars always stayed autonomous within the Maratha empire.
With Swarajya also local assemblies of Vatan right holders exerted influence and pressure on Peshwa, therefore Maratha empire was a confederacy where power was shared between Peshwa and Maratha Sardars and proper centralized rule didn't exist.
In Samrajya, not all areas were brought under effective rule by Maratha Sardars and the focus outside Maharathra was limited to extracting Chaut and Sardeshmukhi.
Therefore Marathas establishing central rule over the whole of India was a distant milestone, especially after the 3rd Battle of Panipat.

Sikh state (7:06 PM)

Guru Nanak dev Ji set up a Sikh Panth around the 16th century and was a contemporary of Babur.
Mughals began having problems with the Sikh community and they demanded political autonomy.
9th Guru Teg bahadur was executed in Delhi in 1685.
Sikhs wanted to establish their state in and around Anantpur in Shivalik Foothills which was under the Shivalik hill chief.
After this 10th Guru Govind Singh set up a brotherhood of Khalsa in 1699, A military organization to defend Sikh Panth from the Mughals and to achieve the goal of the Sikh state.
The Sikh community was dominated by Khatris(traders and Sikh gurus who came from this community) and Jats(peasants who had a military culture and dominated the Khalsa army whose influence increased).
Thus it was decided there won't be an 11th Guru and authority would lay in Guru Granth Saheb to bring parity between the two communities.
In 1707 after the death of Aurangzeb, Bhadur Shah agreed to give Anantpur but then again allied with Shivalik hill chiefs.
In 1708 Guru Govind Singh was murdered in a conspiracy
Now Banda Bahadur continued the rebellion and was able to set up his rule in and around Patiala.
By 1715, he got defeated as Khatri traders turned against him as trade was getting hurt due to law and order instability due to war, some Hindu Jat Zamindars like Churaman Jat switched sides and allied with Mughals.
Jahandar Shah and Farruksiyar deployed divide-and-rule tactics.
Jahandar Shah introduced the Izaradari system in Punjab and this attracted Khatri traders as being an Izaradatr was financially lucrative.
Jahandar Shah and Farruksiyar gave Mansabs to Khatri traders who were now allied with the Mughals.
By 1715, Banda Bahadur was defeated and executed in 1716.
Rule of Misls:
After 1715, the Sikh state did not come to an end as the Mughal empire was weak.
Now power got decentralized among misls and a horizontal structure of polity/ confederation came into existence.
Misls were kinship-based clans headed by misls chief.
In 1770, there were 60 misls in Punjab with Dal Khalsa at the head with a chosen leader.
Misls got united at the time of war, for example during the 1st afghan, 2nd Afghan, and 3rd Afghan invasions.
After defeating the 3rd Afgan invasion of Jaman shah, there was the rise of Rajit Singh of Sukerchakia Misl, who established dominance over other misls and set himself as maharaja of the Sikh state in 1801.
In 1801, he conquered Lahore, and in 1809 conquered 5 doabs and later conquered Multan and Kashmir by removing Afghans.
Even EIC recognized him as a sovereign ruler of Punjab Under the Treaty of Amritsar and a military alliance under the treaty.
Features of the rule of Ranjit Singh:
Trade got boosted and there was law and order stability.
Financial power state as 60 % of the land was royal land.
Ranjit Singh maintained the balance of power in court between the Khalsa army commander and Khatri traders, misls chiefs, and Dogras of Jammu.
He had an inclusive attitude towards non-Khalsa Sikhs, therefore was culturally magnanimous
The autonomy of villages was respected.

The topic of the next class: Jat kingdom

Modern Indian History Class 07

Last class revision (5:00 PM)

Jat Kingdom of Bharatpur (5:09 PM)

Jats were Anti-Mughal since the time of Jhangir and they set up the jat kingdom of Bharatpur under Churaman Jat(1695-1721).
This was done with help of revolts by peasants against the oppression due to the over-extraction of Land revenue by the Mughals, especially in the context of the Jagirdari crisis of the 18th century
Maharaja Surajmal consolidated power and forced the Mughals to recognize him.
He supported Marathas temporarily in the 3rd battle of Panipat in 1761.
He tried to implement military reforms by recruiting Europeans into the army, a Mughal-like revenue system, and removing family members from the courts.
However, his death lead to the decline of the Jat kingdom which at 1 point extended from Delhi in the north to Agra in the west, Chambal in the south, and Ganga in the east.
However, it was no Eutopia for peasants as land revenue demand was higher than during the time of the Mughals.

Afghans kingdom (5:25 PM)

Afghan kingdom in the north (Rohilkhand and Farrukhabad).
Afghans were wandering warlords in north India.
They migrated from Afghanistan to India to India due to political instability but were unorganized politically until the arrival of Shershah Suri in 1540.
But again got disorganized after the 2nd battle of Panipat in 1556 which ended the Suri dynasty's rule.
The opportunity came with the weakening of Mughal post-Aurangzeb
Farrukhabad was set up as a kingdom in the east of Delhi by Bangash Pathans in 1713 making use of political instability in the Mughal polity.
They named this kingdom after Farruksiyar as a gesture of accepting the symbolic authority of the Mughals.
The next opportunity came during the invasion of Nadir Shah in 1738-40 which weakened the Mughal empire(also defeated by Marathas in 1738).
Therefore the kingdom of Rohilkhand was set up by Ali Mohammad Khan in 1737-38 in the Himalayan foothills.
In 1740 Ali Muhammad Khan was officially recognized as governor(therefore not legally independent).
In 1774 Suja-Ud-Dula (Nawab of Awadh) annexed Rohilkhand with the help of EIC.
The rest of Rohilkhand became a princely state.
Farrukhabad was a weak kingdom and neighbours attacked it frequently.
Both supported Abdali in the 3rd battle of Panipat 1761 and Rohilla controlled from 1761-1771 when they were defeated by Mahadji Scindia
After Abdali returned to Afghanistan, the Afghan kingdom's power decreased.

Already autonomous state (6:00 PM)

Rajputs:
These were warrior groups who participated in the military labour market of north India.
Around the 16th-17h century, Rajputs emerged as a consolidated group of 20 major clans, therefore there existed a horizontal structure of polity.
Local Rajput chief of each clan ruled their respective territory.
During Akbar, the powerful Rajput chiefs were co-opted:
Akbar recognized the authority of those Rajput chiefs who were extra-powerful, therefore giving them legitimacy over and above small Rajput chiefs.
With the military help of the Mughals, these Rajput chiefs consolidated power by defeating smaller Rajput chiefs.
They maintained the military for the Mughal emperor as they were recognized as Mansabdars, also their lands were recognized as Watan Jagirs, they now played important role in Delhi politics.
Therefore unable to defeat the Rajputs, the Mughals coopted them and increased the military strength of the Mughal empire.
Also now the horizontal structure of polity was replaced by a more vertical structure in the Rajput polity.
Tension in relationships during Aurangzeb:
Not because of religion-based rivalry rather than expansion by Mewar under Raj Singh against other Rajput chiefs.
Aurangzeb didn't want 1 supreme power in Rajputana and wanted to maintain the balance of power among Rajput chiefs.
In 1680-81 Mewar and Marwar revolted against Aurangzeb but failed.
Reasons for revolt:
Due to the death of an existing ruler, a child ruler came to power in Marwar that lay along the important trade route between Delhi, Agra, and Ahmedabad.
Since Marwad was strategically important, Aurangzeb didn't want a child ruler and interfered in succession.
This provided an opportunity for Mewar to ally with Marwar against Aurengzeb.
The revolt failed as other Rajput chiefs didn't support it as they feared the loss of power to Mewar.
In the 18th century with the weakening of the Mughals, Rajput chiefs acted more independently, especially under Swai Jai Singh of Amber who ruled Jaipur and was a powerful entity in Delhi politics.
1751 onwards Rajputs were regularly attacked by Marathas who extracted annual tributes and interfered in succession but could not conclusively defeat Rajputs.

Mysore (7:26 PM)

In the 16th century, Mysore was part of the Vijayanagar empire(1336-1646) and gradually became autonomous under the Wodeyar dynasty.
In 1673, Mysore became a military powerful and centralized Chikadevraja Wodeyar.
However, by 1761, Wodeyars were reduced to puppets by corrupt PM Nanjaraj.
Hyder Ali:
Hyder Ali(1761-82) was a man of humble origin who began as a junior officer in the army and later became a senior military general.
In 1761, he overthrow PM Najaraj to establish his rule.
Hyder Ali worked with the french to improve his military by importing technology and taking the help of french trainers.
The army was designed on European models.
The army was to be a summation of Risalas(regiments).
Each Risala had a commander personally appointed by the king.
Each Risala had a clear chain of Command and hierarchy leading up to the king.
Each Risala was a self-sufficient unit as it had its weaponry, transport, and own supplies.
Therefore a very efficient military organization capable of swift action was built.
Hyder Ali consolidated power by subjugating local chiefs, Deshmukh, poligars (big landlords with their private army who acted independently since the time Vijayanagara empire ), etc.
Poligars and Deshmukhs till now were effective rulers of the countryside as they controlled land, land revenue, and the wealth of the temples.

The topic for the next class: Tipu sultan and the land revenue model of Hyder Ali & Tipu.

Modern Indian History Class 08

Mysore under Hyder Ali and Tipu (5:07 PM)

Remove intermediaries(Deshmukhs) and introduce a direct collection of taxes by the state through state officials who got salaries and not commissions.
This allowed more income for the state and low taxes for peasants as now no commission of intermediaries.
This increased the financial strength of the state immensely.
Did detailed field surveys to asses land revenue demand, therefore, preventing over-assessments.
To maximize the land revenue system tipu modernized the irrigation system, introduced sericulture, and promoted crash crops.
Land under Jagirdari was minimized.
Tipu protected peasants from corruption and oppression of officials via effective supervision.
Even Tipu's enemy accepted that his population was the most prosperous.
In 1793, Tipu set up a state commercial cooperation to set up factories in and outside Mysore.
The PSU set up 30 trading centres in and outside Mysore and even outside India, for example in Muscat(Oman), and Mysore began international trade in lucrative goods like sandalwood, Pepper, rice, silk, sulfur, cardamom, etc.
Tipu's revenue model and his fiscal policies are also called military fiscalism as a huge amount of wealth was generated by the state to build a strong military and in this respect, Mysore behaved like EIC.
Tipu sent ambassadors to France for importing foreign technology and to build an alliance against the British.
Tipu introduced rockets in the military and was used in 1799(4th Anglo-Mysore war) which EIC copied and developed in 1806.
However, dreams were bigger than resources, and constant warfare with Indian neighbours and EIC drained resources.
This was because Mysore wanted to dominate the whole of south India and its trade, therefore developing rivals with Indian neighbours and EIC respectively.
Tipu declared independence from the Mughals formally, For example, minted coins in his name and used his name in Khutba/Friday prayers.
Tipu requested Farman/decree from the ottoman empire's khalifa who was also a religious had of the Muslim world, declaring Tipu as a ruler independent from the Mughals.

Travancore (8:17 PM)

Always maintained independence from the Mughals.
Marthanda Varma:
The important ruler was Marthanda Varma who by 1740 setup a strong centralized state by subjugating the local chiefs, he did some territorial expansion and built a west-like military with modern weapons, and in 1741 removed the Dutch from Cochin, who were there since 1669.
He forced EIC to trade on his terms.
He established a state monopoly over the pepper trade of Malabar and later all trade on the Malabar coast.
Trade profits were utilized for military, agriculture, transport, and communication.
Under Rama Varma, Travancore became the centre of art and scholarship but declined militarily.
In 1766 Hyder Ali attacked and annexed Malabar and Calicut then Tipu attacked and this contributed to the 3rd Anglo-Mysore war as EIC was an ally of Travancore.
After Rama Verma, Travancore came under British influence.
In 1800, a British resident was stationed in the court.
In 1805 Travancore signed a subsidiary/subordinate alliance with EIC that led to EIC control over foreign policy and military, in return for help in suppressing a revolt in the army by Nair troops due to low salaries.
In 1809, PM/Devan Velu Thampi led a revolt by peasants and Nair troops against EIC, due to interference in the domestic affairs by British residents which was crushed by EIC.

The advent of Europeans (7:03 PM)

Colonialism was originally associated with settlement by foreigners, that is converting a newfound land into a colony.
These foreign settlers established their domination and exploited indigenous people in the economic, political, and cultural domains.
colonialism implies the domination of economic, political, social, and cultural by foreigners of indigenous people.
Foreigners may be in form of foreign settlers, businesses, and foreign states or foreign institutions.
For example post decolonization after WW2, neo-colonialism began ex-colonies now had political independence legally but they were still dominated and exploited by ex-colonial powers and international institutions like IMF and the world banks
As these newly independent nations were economically weak and therefore dependent on foreign aid and loans
Which were tied with conditionalities that prevented these nations from following independent policies, therefore this was colonialism in a new form, Hence the name neo-colonialism
Imperialism is when there is the use of the military or its threat
In imperialism, there is usually a loss of sovereignty and is usually done by a foreign state, therefore empire-building via territorial annexations is a feature of imperialism usually.
Colonialism and imperialism are used interchangeably.
Old colonialism/imperialism existed pre-industrialization of western Europe, that is pre-1870.
Pre-1817, it was motivated by Gold, Glory, and God.
God represented the motive of spreading Christianity.
Glory represented empire building.
Gold represented economic motives and led to economic exploitation via loot of wealth and resources, plantation systems, trade of lucrative crops from the colony to the rest of the world, and the lucrative slave trade.
Where Africans were sold as slaves in the Americas for cheap labour in the plantation system.

The topic of the next class: Advent of Europeans

Modern Indian History Class 09

Last class revision(5.01 PM).

Advent of European(5.15 PM):

Traditionally European trade with the east was done via the silk route(a land route to china and a spice route a sea route to the east)
Traders from Venice and Geneva dominated European trade with the east and earned huge profits by selling to the rest of Europe.
Arabain sea part of the trade was dominated by Arab traders.
In 1453 Ottoman empire conquered Constantinople and locked European trade with the east, triggering a search for a northwest trade route to the east.
This led to the age of discovery in the 16th century, whereby man of the world was gradually developed and there were advances in shipping and knowledge of geography.
In 1492, Columbus discovered Central America.
In 1498, Vasco-de-Gama discovered a route via the cape of good hope to India and reached Calicut.
In 1500, Amerigo Vespucci discovered south America and proved that America was a continent different from India.
In the early 16th century, the Portuguese discovered a new route to China and the Philippines.
Therefore European trade with the east was established.

Portuguese in India(5.50 PM):

Trade with India was done via a state-led corporation.
They began their trade with south India and set up trading centers in different parts of India, especially coastal areas.
They set up their main base in and around Surat and later in Goa.
In 1510 they captured Goa from the kingdom of Bijapur and Bombay in 1534.
They dominated international trade in the east indies for 100 years with HQ in Goa.
Since India had strong land power, therefore Portuguese followed the policy of domination only of the high seas/oceans, and the oceanic trade of India.
They did not aim to build a political empire in India.
Portuguese dominated the high seas(Bule water policy) as they were strong naval powers.
They did armed trade, engaged in piracy, and therefore the passage via oceans and allowed passage only after payment of a license fee by other ships.
They regularly raided Arab traders who until now dominated Arabian sea trade and also threaten Mughal ships forcing Mughals to give trade concessions from lower customs duties and permission to set up factories and trading centers.
They were religious fanatics and engaged in forced conversions to Christianity.
In the late 16th century, there was the rise of 2 new naval powers- Dutch and England.
The 1st challenge to achieving freedom was navigation in the ocean and the 2nd to removing Portuguese control over the oceanic trade of the east indies.
In 1588, in a decisive battle, Britain defeated Armada/a large Spanish naval fleet in the Atlantic Ocean, and now Britain and the dutch could travel to the east via the Cape of good hope.

British Vs Portuguese(6.39 PM):

In 1608, EIC wanted to open a factory in Surat, therefore sending captain Hawkins to Jahangir's court, he was given a Mansab and a Jagir but then was removed from court due to pressure from the Portuguese.
Therefore EIC realized that the military defeat of the Portuguese is a must for EIC to expand its trade with India.
In 1612, EIC defeated the Portuguese navy in surat and therefore was rewarded by Jahangir with a royal Farman in 1612, which gave EIC the right to establish itself on the west coast.
Hence Surat factory was set up in 1612.
To extract more concession British government sent Thomes Roe as an ambassador and he was accepted as a resident in Jahangir's court.
Finally, in 1617, he was able to extract another royal Farman where the British got the right to establish factories in the whole of the Mughal empire and liberal trading rights.
These angered the Portuguese and in 1620 conflicts culminated in a major battle where the British won and this ended Portuguese domination of international trade in India.
In 1661, King Charles II of England got the island of Bombay in dowry from the Portuguese.
Therefore by the mid-17 century, the Portuguese were restricted to Goa, Daman and Diu, Dadra, and Nagar Haveli.

British Vs Dutch(7.09 PM):

Dutch removed the Portuguese from Cylon and the east indies(Indonesia).
And now rivalry between the British and the Dutch who fought for decades and finally by the mid-17 century British was defeated and a compromise was reached whereby the Dutch agreed to not attack the British in India and the British left Indonesia to the dutch.
British stayed in Malaya and Dutch dominated Kochin by 1669.
The Dutch were removed from Kochin in1741 by Marthanda Varma.
By 1795, the complete removal of the dutch from India by British.

English East India Company(7.28 PM):

It was set up on 31st December 1600 by a royal charter which was its founding document issued by Queen Elizabeth.
The tools given by royal charter to EIC were:
Monopoly over British trade with the east indies that is with all land east of cape of good hope for 15 years.
EIC was allowed to carry gold out of Britain to buy eastern goods.
The Right to wage war, acquire territories, and administer them.
The goal for EIC formation as per the charter was not empire building but trade with the east to counter dutch competition.
Presidencies of EIC:
Presidencies of EIC in Madras, Bombay, and Calcutta served as regional HQ of EIC trade with south, west, and east India respectively.
The term presidency was given or the status of HQ was given when these places came to have significant EIC establishments in form of warehouses, offices, homes, etc.
Later when EIC annexed territories in India, they were added to respectively regional presidencies leading to the expansion of the company's regional HQ into provinces of British India.
The Madras presidency was set up in 1652.
The Bombay presidency was set up in 1681.
The Calcutta presidency was set up in 1699.
The Governor of the presidency was a regional manager of EIC, who initially looked mainly after the business of EIC but once EIC became conqueror and ruler, then ruling parts of India became his additional responsibility as the company transformed itself into a company-state

The topic of the next: Rise of EIC as political power.

Modern Indian History Class 10

Rise of English East India Company as political power (5:05 PM)

Was the conquest of India a result of British policy?
British arguments:
Britain has no such policy and the conquest of India was the product of sub-imperialism.
Which are the result of policies and actions and personal ambitions of senior officials of EIC like Robert Clive (Governor of Culcutta presidency), Richard Wellesley (Governor general of Bengal from 1798-1805), Hasting (Governor general of Bengal,1813-23), Dalhousie(Governor-general of India, 1848-56).
They had personal ambitions for British polity and a personal desire for empire-building.
Many senior EIC officials build good political careers after they retire from EIC.
For example, Wellesley became Secretary of State, a cabinet member.
In the Pitts India act of 1784, there was a parliamentary prohibition on conquest in India.
The goal behind the royal charter of 1600 was trade and not empire building.
Indian arguments:
Yes, there was sub-imperialism in India, however, the British state cannot escape responsibility for imperialism in India as a tool of conquest TO EIC by the state as a charter of EIC that was a founding document issued by the state (initially by the crown and later by parliament)
It gave power to EIC to wage war, sign treaties, acquire territory, and administer them.
EIC had the military support of the Royal military in its military conflicts and without the royal military EIC could not have begun the conquest of India (Battle of Plassey 1757).
Even the 1857 revolt was crushed with the help of the royal military.
The state assisted EIC in setting up and developing EIC presidencies, for example, Bombay was given an annual rent of just 10 pounds to EIC by the crown.
Therefore state helped EIC set up a strong base in India leading to higher profits via trade that led to the capability of EIC to have its big army.
British crown, state, and important figures in British polity benefited monetarily from EIC trade and conquest.
For example, 17,000 pounds were given by EIC to the crown/monarchy in the 17th century in return for the renewal of charters.
In 1698, parliament auctioned the monopoly of British trade with east the New Company as it offered a 2 million pounds loan Vs 700,000 pounds offered by EIC(In 1709 EIC and New Company merged).
In 1767, EIC was mandated by parliament/state to pay 400,000 pounds/ annum to the state therefore state wanted its share of EIC loot of Bengal after the battle of Plassey in 1757 and the battle of Buxar in 1764.
Important figures were shareholders of EIC, for example, many parliamentarians and Queen Elizabeth herself.
EIC became an important tool of the foreign policy of Britain as EIC dominated international trade in Britain.
After the regulation act of 1773 and the Pitts India act of 1784, EIC affairs in India came under the supervision and control of the British state, and the board of control could pass binding orders to EIC.
Now the principal servants of EIC in India could only be appointed after the approval of the crown.
Therefore even if imperialism was not possible for the British state and opportunity made use of and even created by important EIC officials in India, that is sub-imperialism, the British state cannot escape responsibility for imperialism in India.

Events in empire building by EIC (7:11 PM)

EIC Vs Aurangzeb,1686:
EIC attacked the Mughals in Bengal as Aurangzeb's constant warfare hurt the overland trade, therefore hurting EIC's oceanic trade.
EIC was crushed but then forgiven in return for 1.5 lakh rupees compensation as:
Mughals got revenue from EIC in form of customs duties and from Indian merchants who sold goods to EIC in form of domestic taxes.
Indian merchants got business from EIC.
The inflow of gold due to EIC exports from India.
Indian peasants and Artisans benefited as EIC trade generated demands for their goods.
In fact, in 1691, Aurangzeb issued a Royal Farman that gave EIC the right to duty-free trade in return for just 3000 rupees/annum.
Role of Britain-France rivalry:
Role of Britain-France Rivalry.
3 Carnatic wars, 1746-48, 1749-54, and 1756-63.
Battle of Plassey.
4th Anglo-Mysore war, 1799.

1st Carnatic war, 1746-48 (7:50 PM)

It was part of and the result of the Austrian war of succession in 1740-48.
Where Britain and France with their allies fought in Europe, the Americas, and India.
Dupleix was governor of the french EIC in Pondicerry(the main base of french in India since 1664).
He has personal ambitions of empire-building and wanted the french EIC to dominate the international trade of South India.
The conflict began in 1746 after capturing Fort Siant George in Madras, Dupleix refused to hand it over as promised to Nawab of Carnatic.
This led to the 1st Carnatic 1746-178 with Carnatic and British EIC Vs French EIC.
War was won by Dupleix, however, in North America British were victorious, and for France, its American possession was more important.
Therefore under the treaty of Ax-la-Chaple 1748, France got back its possession in North America while the British got back Madras, therefore, status-quo was maintained.
Now Dupleix searched for the next opportunity to increase french influence and this led to the 2nd Carnatic war.

The topic for the next class: 2nd Carnatic wars.

Modern Indian History Class 11

Last class revision (5:02 PM)

1st Carnatic war:
It was part of and the result of the Austrian war of succession.
War was won by Dupleix, however, in North America British were victorious, and for France, its American possession was more important.
Therefore under the treaty of Aix-la-Chaple 1748, France regained its possession in North America while the British returned Madras.

2nd Carnatic War (1749-54) (5:15 PM)

Dupleix got an opportunity in the form of succession disputes in Hyderabad and Carnatic.
In Hyderabad Nasir Jung Vs Muzaffar Jung and Carnatic Muhammad Ali Vs Chanda Shaheb.
Dupleix supported Chanda Shaheb and Muzaffar Jung as he wanted economic and political benefits after putting his choice of candidate in power.
Therefore anxious British EIC supported Muhammad Ali and Nasir Jung.
Dupleix and Bassy won the 1st phase by 1751.
While Robert Clive of British EIC won the second phase by 1754.
After 1st phase, Muzaffar Jung was declared Nizam of Hyderabad and Chanda Shaheb of Arcot/Carnatic.
Muzaffar Jung was killed on his way from Carnatic to Hyderabad by Nawab of Kurnool as he had supported Muzaffar Jung but now feared a breach of the promise of territory made by Muzaffar Jung.
Now Bussy continued to march to Hyderabad and inflicted colossal terror.
He put Salabat Jung in power in Hyderabad and placed a french military for the protection of Nizam, this military was to be paid for by Hyderabad.
Therefore French EIC got Northern Circars from Hyderabad.
Other french gains after 1st phase:
Bussy was stationed as a french agent in the Hyderabad court, establishing french political influence in Hyderabad, personal Jagirs for Bassy, and 200,000 pounds for French EIC.
In Carnatic huge peronsal Jagirs for Dupleix.
Dupleix was declared as Nawab of all lands between River Krishna and Cape Comorin with Chanda Shaheb as Nawab of Arcot.
After 2nd phase victory by British Dupleix was recalled by France in 1754 due to high war expenditure.
Also, France wanted to Treaty wanted to honour the treaty of Aix-la-Chaple 1748 to secure its assets in America.
Chanda Shaheb surrendered but was still beheaded despite the promise of life by Robert Clive.
France was allowed to retain territory around Pondicherry, its factors in Carnatic, Northern Circars, and French agent at Hyderabad court.
Muhammad Ali became the nawab of Carnatic.
Therefore French influence in Hyderabad and British influence in Carnatic was the net result of the 2nd Carnatic war.

3rd Carnatic War, 1756-63 (6:22 PM)

Result and part of a 7-year global war(1756-63) fought between Britain, France, and their respective allies.
It was fought in Europe, Africa, the Americas, and India.
Count-De-Lally arrived from France to lead the french military along with Bussy who was in charge of Northern Circars.
While Robert Clive played an essential role from the British side.
The royal military of Britain and France arrived in India.
Why did France lose?
Tactical mistake- Bussy left Northern Circars unguarded to help Lally in Carnatic leading to the loss of Northern Circars to the British.
Poor leadership of Lally- he was hated among french officials and sepoys due to his rude conduct, which hurt the army's morale.
The superior British navy,
The superior financial strength of Britain and British EIC while France faced financial difficulty
For example, french Soldiers were unpaid for months which hurt morale.
Britain had witnessed growth earlier than France during the Industrial Revolution in Britain, with more significant trade profit as trading with more regions and longer time, whereas Feudalism ended in France very late.
The result of the War was:
The question of dominance over international trade in India was decided in the British favour.
Most decided was the battle of Wandiwash and the French lost all over including Pondicherry.
French lost all gains made since 1749 under Dupleix.
Therefore French were restricted to their bases.
They were barred from fortifying their bases and from keeping a strong military.
In 1769 French EIC was ended by France.
French continued in Chandanagar and Ponidicherry.
The high number of British royal military troops arrived in India in favour of EIC, giving EIC the military advantage over Indian states.
For example, they felt confident enough to start the Battle of Plassey, in 1757.
Long-term effects of Carnatic wars:
Post-1757 EIC began maintaining a large army with the help of the loot of Bengal.
Now EIC began increasing its political influence and started empire-building in 1757.
In 1766 Hyderabad gave Northern Circars to EIC in return for Military protection against Mysore and Marathas.
In 1798 Hyderabad became the first state to sign a Subsidiary alliance that brought military and foreign policy under EIC.
The huge territory of Mysore was annexed by 1799 via the 3rd and 4th Anglo-Mysore war and Subsidiary alliance signed by Mysore in 1799.
After the death of an ally, Mohammad Ali Carnatic was annexed in 1801.
In 1805 Subsidiary alliance was signed with Travancore.
Peshwa signed a Subsidiary alliance in 1803 to regain Perswaship with British help.
In the 2nd Anglo-Martha war Marthas lost significant territory and Scindia of Gwalior signed a Subsidiary alliance.
Therefore EIC began political influence in south India with the Carnatic war and dominated south India politically by the early 19th century.

Bengal and EIC/ Battle of Plassey, 1757 (7:45 PM)

The origin of the conflict was Farruksiyar's Royal Farman of 1717.
It gave EIC the right to duty-free trade in Bengal, Gujarat, and Deccan and the right to use the Royal mint.
It gave renting of 38 villages around Calcutta.
Murshid Quli Khan allowed duty-free trade to EIC but did not allow misuse of Dastaks for private trade by EIC officials.
He also did not allow the use of the Royal mint and allowed renting of villages but not their purchase by EIC
therefore Royal Farman became the origin of the conflict however misuse of Dastaks began and continued.
Dastaks was a document issued by EIC officials that certified a set of goods are EIC goods and therefore entitled to duty-free trade.
Therefore Dastaks operationalized the duty-free trade privilege given by the royal Farman and misuse of Dastaks implied duty evasion by EIC officials as they wrongly claimed their private trade as EIC trade.

The topic of the next class: Short-term reasons for the battle of Plassey.

Modern Indian History Class 12

Battle of Plassey (5:01 PM)

Short-term reasons:
Misuse of Dastaks and illegal trade:
By the 1750s 100,000 pounds was the quantum of private trade by EIC officials which was 50 times their annual salaries.
EIC officials also sold Dastaks to non-EIC merchants.
Nawab of Bengal lost a huge amount of revenue due to the misuse of Dastaks(that is tax/duty evasion).
Private trade of EIC officials hurt the economic interest of EIC as well but EIC was unable to control it.
Illegal trade- the Chater of EIC gave a monopoly to EIC over British trade will all territories to the east of cape of good hope and therefore trade with India by anyone other than EIC was illegal, for example, private trade of EIC officials and trade by non-EIC merchants from Britain.
Interlopers were non-EIC British merchants who traded illegally in India.
Free merchant trade was also illegal but artificially legalized as EIC allowed them to settle in EIC establishments if they agreed to act as middlemen between Indian merchants and EIC instead of directly trading with India, that is they sold Indian goods to EIC in India instead of exporting themself.
Britain-France rivalry:
EIC feared the french and was afraid of the french repeating their success in Carnatic
Therefore EIC began adding fortifications in Calcutta in 1755 without the permission of Alivardi Khan.
EIC officials also offered protection to fugitives from the nawab's court.
Therefore EIC Challenged the sovereign authority of the nawab
However, Alivardi Khan avoided conflict and followed diplomacy.
Role of Siraj-ud-Daulah:
He acted in haste and stopped all misuse of Dastaks, therefore hurting the private trade of EIC officials.
When the British gave asylum to Krisha Ballabh(charged with fraud with Siraj) and EIC began a new fortification in Calcutta, Siraj acted.
He took over a British factory in Qasim Bazar near Hooghly and attacked and captured Calcutta and renamed it, Ali Nagar.
Also during this attack Black Hole tragedy in Calcutta, thereby 30 British men were killed due to suffocation because of overcrowding in a non-ventilated room.
This created huge controversy among the British.
Events:
Robert Clive arrived with the army from Madras and then defeated Siraj, took back Calcutta, and signed the Treaty of Ali Nagar with Siraj which restored all privileges of EIC.
Then the British defeated the french in Chandannagar and destroyed the Hugli port important for the french.
Now Jagat Seth and Mir Jafar bribed EIC and Robert Clive so they replaced Siraj with Mir Jafar as Nawab(Mir Jafar was the war commander of the Bengal army).
There was rivalry in the court between merchants, bankers, Zamindar, and nobles.
Siraj was hated due to his disrespectful conduct and Indian merchants and bankers benefited greatly from their business with EIC.
Mir Jafar ensured that the majority of the Bengal army did not fight in the battle of Plassey in 1757 when EIC attacked.
Therefore Siraj was defeated easily by Robert Clive, Siraj ran away, later captured and killed.

Result/Significance of Battle of Plassey (6:18 PM):

Now Mir Jafar was a puppet nawab of EIC.
EIC's military domination of Bengal began, therefore beginning the political supremacy of EIC in India.
Plassey plunder(1757-65):
275,000 pounds to the royal military for distribution to their members.
2.25 Crore rupees to EIC.
Personal Jagir for Clive is worth 35,000 pounds per annum and 234,000 pounds in cash to him.
From 1757-65, 2.5 Million pounds were taken by EIC as political gifts from the Nawab of Bengal.
Change in the structure of EIC trade:
Now gold was no more needed by Britain to buy Indian goods as Indian money was now used to buy Indian goods.
Indian gold was used to buy Chinese goods and Indian gold was taken to Britain.
Therefore from Gold outflow pre-1757, now there was gold and wealth inflow to Britain.
Therefore drain of wealth from India began after 1757.
This also led to a huge dip in Bengal revenue.
Now rampant misuse of Dastaks and EIC officials made personal fortunes example Clive(Governor of Culcutta presidency).
When Mir Jafar could not pay any more to EIC, he was replaced with his son-in-law Mir Qasim by the EIC.

Battle of Buxar, 1764 (7:02 PM)

Background:
Mir Qasim was an efficient administrator and wanted independence from EIC control, therefore sifted his base from Murshidabad to Bihar to be physically away from the British.
He gathered money and started building his army.
To get the support of Indian merchants he abolished all taxes on domestic trade, therefore bringing parity between Indian merchants and British traders who did not pay any taxes when they did domestic trade, through their Indian agents called Gomutsahs.
This hurt revenue of Bengal but Qasim wanted the support of Indian merchants.
EIC did not like this streak of independence in Qasim, and thus defeated and replaced Qasim with Mir Jafar.
Now Qasim escaped with wealth to Awadh and built an alliance with Suja-Ud-Dualah(Nawab of Awadh) and Shah Alam-II(Mughal emperor) who was in Awadh.
Fugitive prince Shah Alam-II escaped Delhi due to fear of life from Imam-ul-Mulk, Wazir, and grandson of Nizam-ul-Mulk.
He was also frustrated with Delhi court politics and wanted to build his kingdom in the east, that is Bengal which had stopped sending revenue to Delhi since Alivardi Khan.
Shuja-Ud-Daulah agreed to a promise of 30 million rupees, Bihar and its treasury for Awadh(lack of modern nationalism).
Reason for defeat:
A tactical mistake by Shuja who followed an offensive strategy rather than a more appropriate defensive strategy of cutting off the supply lines of the EIC army in Buxar and he also ignored the advice of Qasim.
Therefore Hector Munro emerged victorious and now EIC send Clive from London to India to negotiate the treaty of Allahabad.
The treaty of Allahabad, 1765:
EIC treated Shah Alam-II with respect as in he lay sovereignty of India and with him on their side, EIC could have greater influence in India.
The Treaty of Allahabad was signed between Robert Clive of EIC and Shah Alam-II & Shuja-Ud-Daula.
EIC promised a tribute of 26 lakh rupees/ annum to the emperor(although never gave this help).
EIC promised Shah Alam-II military help to recapture Delhi which was under Rohilla Afghans since 1761(although never helped recapture Delhi).

The topic of the next class: The treaty of Allahabad w.r.t Bengal.

Modern Indian History Class 13

Treaty of Allahabad (5:05 PM)

Treaty of Allahabad and Bengal:
EIC got Diwani from Orissa, Bengal, and Bihar.
That is reveune adminstarion and reveunes of Bengal Suba.
Therefore for 1st time, EIC took over a sovereign function.
Therefore EIC got an additional source of income in form of revenues from the richest province of India.
The dual government (1765-72) of Bengal:
Legally Diwani (revenue administration) was given to EIC and Nizamat (non-revenue administration) with the Nawab of Bengal.
The policy of indirect rule was initiated in Bengal as Nawab of Bengal became a puppet of EIC as a British resident now stationed in court.
The British resident in 1772 became the actual centre of power.
EIC also got the right to appoint deputy Subadar, who headed Nizamat on behalf of Nawab.
Therefore through him EIC indirectly controlled Nizamat.
Therefore in practice, EIC got full control of Bengal, that is Diwani as well as Nizamat.
Legally dual government from 1765-72, practically EIC can rule legally in Diwani and indirectly in Nizamat but did not as EIC appointed Deputy Subadar Mohammad Reza Khan, who headed or ruled Nizamat on behalf of the nawab, also as Diwan of EIC.
Therefore Indian administration under the Indian deputy subadar continued till 1772.
The dual government was ended due to worsening law and order and warren hastings wanted to improve administration, therefore EIC established direct rule of its own in both Diwani and Nizamant in 1772.
Treaty of Allahabad and Awadh:
Shuja was made to pay 5 million rupees.
Shuja was now a puppet and a British resident could now be stationed in Awadh court.
The policy of a Ring fence was initiated by Clive but was associated mainly with Warren Hasting.
The policy of a Ring fence meant creating a buffer around the core interest regions of EIC by signing a military alliance with neighbours.
A military alliance was signed between Awadh and EIC.
Therefore now EIC could use Awadh military resources for the protection of EIC's interests in Bengal.
Awadh came under the military control of EIC as an EIC army stationed in Awadh permanently as it was to be paid for by Awadh in form of an annual subsidy.
Duty-free trade in Awadh.
Therefore Treaty of Allahabad with Awadh was a mini-subsidiary alliance.

Subsidiary Alliance/Subordinate Alliance (6:44 PM)

It was a policy initiated by Wellesley.
There was a ban on imperial expansion by the Pitts India act because of huge war expenditure by EIC.
Therefore British wanted to consolidate gains made from these wars and prevent war expenditure.
Therefore now EIC was to follow the policy of indirect rule and maintain the balance of power among Indian states.
Wellesley was an empire builder and had huge personal political ambitions in British polity.
He gave the policy of indirect rule & balance of power and reinitiated the policy of expansion.
He convinced the British government by overplaying the fear of Napoleon attacking India after aligning with Indian states like Mysore.
Napoleon attacked Egypt in 1798 to control middle-east and hurt British trade by dominating the Arabian sea.
He also had ambitions of re-establishing french influence over India and was in communications with Tipu.
However, there was no real threat of the french invading India and the British knew it.
Still, the government agreed to Wellesley as the primary goal of British foreign policy was to protect India from European rivals.
Wellesley found a middle path in form of a Subsidiary alliance that led to supremacy over Indian states without annexation.
The model treaty of Subsidiary alliance:
British protection to the Indian state against its neighbours and also against the internal threat of law and order instability.
For this EIC stationed its military permanently in the Indian state.
State to pay for maintenance of EIC army stationed in form of annual subsidy.
A British resident stationed in the court of an Indian ruler.
British consent was needed for stationing any Europeans in court.
Indian states must consult Governor General while negotiating with Indian rulers or foreign power.
The promise of non-interface by EIC in the internal affairs of the Indian states.
Impact of Subsidiary alliance on Indian states:
There was a drain of wealth in the form of subsidy to EIC and the subsidy was high.
EIC gradually increased the amount of subsidy demanded.
Now EIC could maintain a large army at expense of Indian states as money for this large army came in form of a subsidy.
At times Indian rulers gave the territory to EIC as payment of subsidy, for example in 1801 half of Awadh was given.
There was a loss of jobs for military men as the army of the Indian state was disbanded.
Indian ruler has to raise taxes to pay subsidies and that made him unpopular.
Peasants came under the oppression of high land revenue and this increased the chances of peasant revolts.
Indian rulers were accused of maladministration while they had no powers as the British did not respect the promise of non-interference in internal affairs and British resident established their indirect rule.
Indian states lost powers to settle border disputes with each other, therefore now could not unite as lost control of foreign policy.
They also lost the ability to self-defence as they had to disband their armies.
Hyderabad was the 1st to sign a subsidiary alliance in 1798 due to fear of Marathas and Mysore.
The significant territory of Mysore after the 4th Anglo-Mysore war in 1799 and Mysore signed a subsidiary alliance in 1799.
In 1801, Carnatic was annexed after the death of EIC ally Mohammad Ali in 1795.
In 1801, Awadh signed a subsidiary alliance, and half of Awadh was annexed as permanent payment of subsidy.
In 1802, Gaekwad of Baroda signed a subsidiary alliance in return for EIC's help in a succession dispute.
In 1803, Peshwa Baji Rao-II signed a subsidiary alliance in return for EIC's help to regain Peshwaship after he was removed by Holkar of Indore.
After the Defeat in the 2nd Anglo-Maratha war, Scindia of Gwalior signed a subsidiary alliance, and significant territory of Maratha Sardars annexed by EIC.
In 1805, Travancore signed a subsidiary alliance in return for military help to suppress a revolt by Nair troops due to low salary.
Wellesley was recalled in 1805 due to high war expenditure.

The topic of the next class: The anglo-Mysore war.

Modern Indian History Class 14

Anglo-Mysore War (5:08 PM)

Reasons for Animosity between Mysore Vs EIC, Hyderabad, Marathas, and Travancore:
Mysore wanted to dominate the whole of south India politically, therefore rivalry with Indian neighbours.
Mysore wanted to dominate the trade of south India and this was against the interest of EIC.
Therefore rise of Mysore as a political, military, and mercantilist (fulfilment of profit motive via trade) power threatened the British.
Mysore followed a policy of military fiscalism which was similar to the policy followed by EIC.
Mysore used resources from land revenue and trade to modernize its military with help of the french.
Therefore it competed with EIC in core interesting areas of EIC, thus a threat to EIC.
In 4 Anglo-Mysore wars usually, Hyderabad and Marathas fought on the side of EIC except in 1780-82 when there was an alliance between Marathas, Hyderabad, and Mysore against EIC.
Nana Fadnavis was 1st to realize the political ambitions of EIC in India.
Therefore took initiative to create the above alliance.
1st Anglo-Maratha and so was the 2nd Anglo-Mysore war in 1780-1784, while Hyderabad was turning against EIC as EIC took over Guntur.
However, EIC soon settled disputes by returning Guntur to Hyderabad and signing the treaty of Salbai, in 1782 that ended the war with Marthas and creating a military alliance between EIC and Marathas.
Therefore breaking an alliance of Indian powers and replacing it with a triple alliance of EIC, Hyderabad, and Marathas by 1782.
Also, the aggressive foreign policy of tipu contributed to the isolation of Mysore.
Results of 4 Anglo-Mysore wars:
In 1st 2 Anglo-Mysore wars(1766-69 and 1780-84) status-quo was maintained territorially.
However, Mysore lost roughly half of the territory to EIC, Marathas, and Hyderabad in the 3rd Anglo-Mysore war in 1789-92(Malabar, Baramahal, Dindigul).
Further Major loss of territory in the 4th Anglo-Mysore war, where Tipu died defending his capital, Seringapatam, and the Wodeyar Dynasty was restored to power and the Subsidiary alliance was signed with more in 1799.
EIC focused on taking over coastal areas like Malabar, Canara, and surrounding Mysore.

Travancore (5:52 PM)

In 1800 a British resident was stationed in Travancore, therefore EIC influence began after the strict rule of Matanda Verma and Rama Verma ended.
In 1805 there was a revolt by Nair troops due to grievances related to salaries and Travancore signed a subsidiary alliance, in return for military help by EIC.
However, the promise of non-interface in internal affairs wasn't kept by the British resident.
Therefore 1809, Diwan Vellu Thapi revolted with help of peasants and Nair troops, and this revolt was crushed.

Carnatic (6:06 PM)

In 1801 Carnatic was annexed by Wellesly after the death of ally Mohamad Ali.

Anglo-Maratha War (6:07 PM)

1st Anglo-Maratha war in 1775-82.
2nd Anglo-Maratha war in 1803-05.
3rd Anglo-Maratha war in 1817-19.
Importance of Deccan for British:
Large coastal areas, that is west coast with Marthas(Konkan coast and some Malabar coast).
High cotton trade with china from Gujarat.
1st Anglo-Maratha war in 1775-82:
Reasons:
Raghunath Rao was removed as Peshwa in the Barbhai conspiracy by Nana Fadnavis.
As Raghunath Rao had become Phehwa after the killing of Narayan Rao.
Now Raghunath Rao went to EIC in Bombay. and the signed treaty of Surat that led to the 1st Anglo-Maratha War.
Treaty of Surat, 1775:
The Governor of Bombay presidency of EIC agreed to help Raghunath Rao to regain Peshwaship and in return, Raghunath Rao promised Salsette and Bassin near Bombay,
Events:
After regulating act of 1773 by the British parliament governors of Bombay and madras were subordinated to the Governor-General of Bengal in matters of War and Peace except in emergency circumstances when they could act independently.
Therefore Governor of Bombay acted independently by signing the treaty of Surat.
To prevent War expenditure Governor-General of Bengal overturned the Treaty of Surat and negotiated and negotiated a treaty of Purandar.
EIC recognized Madhav Rao-II as Peshwa and EIC got Salsette and Bassin.
Marathas to not allow the french any position in their domain, however, Nana Fadnavis gave the french a port.
Therefore treaty could not be finalized and war resumed.
By 1782 British were defeated; a contributory factor was the alliance between Indian powers.
However it was an inconclusive victory, therefore Marathas signed a treaty of Salbai, whereby war was ended, and the Marathas got back their territory with EIC, British recognized Madhav Rao-II as Peshwa.
British retained Salsette and France to not allow any position.
Raghunath Rao was pensioned off.

2nd Anglo-Maratha war, 1803-05 (6:48 PM)

Background:
Due to high war expenditure, the Pitts India act of 1784 banned imperial expansion.
But this policy changed with Wellesley.
In 1802 Wellesley signed a Subsidiary alliance with Gaekwad of Baroda in return for help in a succession dispute.
Reasons for war:
Wellesley was an empire builder.
Fractionalism rose in Maratha's polity after the suicide of Peshwa Madhava Rao due to over-controlling Nana Fadnavis and increased opposition to Nana.
Baji Rao-II(son of Raghunath Rao) wanted to remove the influence of Nana Fadnavis.
In 1800, Nana Fadnavis who could have kept Maratha Sardar died, therefore factionalism increased further.
In 1802, Holker of Indore defeated Scindia and also Baji Rao-II.
Now Baji Rao-II went to EIC to regain Peshwaship and signed the treaty of Bassin 1803, whereby he signed a Subsidiary alliance with EIC and now the 2nd Anglo-Maratha war began.
Result:
EIC was victorious in the war.
Subsidiary alliance signed with Scindia.
Scindia lost all territory north of Yamuna including Delhi & Agra and all his part in Gujarat.
Bhonsle of Nagpur lost Orissa to EIC.
Tributaries of Marathas (those who pay annual tributes) like Jats, Bundelas, Rajputs, and Rohillas signed a Subsidiary alliance with EIC.
Due to high war expenditure, Wellesly was recalled and Cornwallis again made the governor-general of Bengal with clear instructions to follow the policy of non-interference and no expansion.

The policy of Paramountcy, 1813 (7:18 PM)

It meant that henceforth a new policy of paramountcy was initiated by hastings.
The British were to be the significant/supreme power among all other forces in India.
therefore British interests were to be Paramount and to protect these paramount interests British to have the right to interfere in the internal affairs of Indian states and even the right to annex Indian states.
Therefore from 1813, Indian states were to have no rights if British interests demanded so(Indian states had rights rover internal affairs in a subsidiary alliance).
Therefore Paramountcy was a subsidiary alliance less any rights for the Indian state.

3rd Anglo-Maratha war, 1817-19 (7:50 PM)

Reasons for the war:
The policy of Paramountcy again gave a push to imperial expansion.
Since 1803, the Subsidiary alliance, Peshwa Baji Rao-II was a puppet of the EIC and he now wanted to regain independence from EIC control.
Also, the policy of non-interference since 1805 allowed Maratha Sardars to consolidate power and feel confident militarily.
Therefore Baji Rao-II allied with Marathas to overthrow British dominance and the 3rd Anglo-Maratha war began.
Results of the war:
EIC was victorious in this war.
Peshwaship was abolished, therefore Peshwa Baji Rao-II was the last Peshwa.
Maharashtra which is Swarajya was annexed by the British.
A subsidiary alliance was signed with Holkar and Bhonsle and lost significant territory to EIC.
Therefore by 1819, EIC has total control over all territory south of Vindhyas.

Annexation fo Awadh (7:57 PM)

Dalhousie:
He implemented and used the policy of Paramountcy to expand the British empire in India.
He annexed territories in the following ways:
Annexing territory instead of payment of subsidy, for example, Berar from Hyderabad in 1853.
By fighting wars for example 2nd Anglo-Sikh war that led to the annexation of Punjab.
Via doctrine of lapse which was the product of the policy of Paramountcy.
Under this those state was annexed where there was no legal heir that is no biological heir of the ruler.
The annexation was justified as an unclear line of succession could lead to political unstably due to succession disputes, therefore, putting British interests under threat.
Examples of such annexation under the doctrine of lapse:
Sambalpur-1849.
Bhagat-1850.
Satara-1848.
Udaipur-1852.
Nagpur-1853.
Jhansi-1854.
To protect the British Paramount interest from maladministration in Awadh, he annexed Awadh in 1856.
To safeguard British paramount interest from the threat of neighbour powers he fought and won the 2nd Burma war and annexed Pegu in lower Burma.
2nd Anglo-Sikh war to prevent any possibility of Russian influence in India via Afghanistan.

The topic of the next class: Annexation of Awadh.

Modern Indian History Class 15

A brief overview of the previous class - (05:01 PM)

Annexation of Awadh - (05:07 PM)

ToA was a form of the subsidiary alliance (SA) but a concrete shape was given by Wellesley 9805 when the formal SA treaty was signed in 1801.
Awadh was important as three-fifth of indigo cultivation was in Awadh + importance of the export of Awadh raw cotton to China.
Subsidy demanded under the Treaty of Allahabad 1765 was gradually increased by EIC to compensate for high war expenditure.
The arrival of Wellesley 9805 - He interfered in the succession of Awadh. After the death of Asaf Ud-daula 7597, EIC refused to accept his son Wazir Ali 9798 as Nawab and made uncle Sadat Ali Khan II Nawab (in 1798) in return for some territory and 76 lakh rupees as an annual subsidy.
Conflict arose with Sadat Ali Khan II due to interference by the British resident + misuse of the Dastaks since 1765 + Nawab defaulted on payment of subsidy in 1801. Therefore, now Richard Wellesley 9805 sent his brother Henry to impose SA on Awadh in 1801 + half of Awadh was annexed as permanent payment of subsidy (* LR from this territory = 1.3 crore v/s justified/decided 76 lakh). Therefore, EIC annexed Gorakhpur - Rohilkhand doab.
Despite permanent payment of subsidy, EIC continues to demand more money, therefore, Nawab was forced to increase taxes and became unpopular among Zamindars and peasants + now the oppression of peasants due to high LR, therefore, fear of peasant revolts by 1855 + by 1855 British resident became the real centre of power. For example - held his informal court, therefore, degrading the status of Nawab.
Now, Dalhousie 4856 accused Nawab of maladministration (Nawab - Wajid Ali Shah) while in reality, high subsidy demand was responsible for the situation but Nawab had no powers and all responsibilities as a British resident established indirect rule.
In 1856, Dalhousie annexed the rest of Awadh on grounds of maladministration (to protect British paramount interests of trade and business in Awadh).

Anglo-Sikh Wars - (05:31 PM)

Background -
As per the policy of the ring fence, the British also wanted stable frontiers to ensure the protection of the British empire from foreign invasions.
If a neighbouring power threatened the frontiers or the frontier state became weak, then the British acted and annexed the frontier state or tried to establish indirect rule in the border Indian state or the immediate neighbourhood of India. Example - In Afghanistan.
Make a flowchart from the board
Reasons for 1st Anglo-Sikh war 1845 -
After the death of Maharaja Ranjit Singh 0139, factionalism increased in Punjab polity with rivalries between Sindhanwalias (Misl chief), Dogras from Jammu (poor wazirs), the Khalsa army and princes from the Royal family.
Also, there were succession disputes and political murders + there was the rise of the Khalsa army as a political power in the Sikh polity it talked about the idea of the rule of Panchayats which threatened the British, therefore, political instability in frontier states + rise of Khalsa army as a political player led to action by British in form of first Anglo-Sikh war where British + Dogras v/s Sikh state (GGI = Hardinge 1844-48).
Results -
This led to the humiliating treaty of Lahore 1846 where
a) the size of the Khalsa army was decreased and an EIC army was stationed.
b) EIC annexed Jalandhar doab.
c) Kashmir was given to Raja Gulab Singh Dogra of Jammu (*J&K)
d) Maharaja Dilip Singh 4349 is now to be advised by a British resident, that is, the policy of indirect rule was initiated.
There was another treaty in December 1846, whereby, the mother of Dilip Singh was removed as regent, and a regency council headed by a British resident was set up.
Therefore, the British control of military and internal administration.
Second Anglo-Sikh War (1848-49) by Dalhousie 4856
Reasons = two Sikh chiefs/governors revolted against the British + Dalhousie 4856 an empire builder.
Result = full annexation of Punjab.

Expansionism of British - (06:18 PM)

Draw a diagram from the board (on the core area and a new threat).
With empire building, the core kept on expanding leading to new fears about protecting the core and leading to further empire building, therefore, the 19th century saw a series of annexations and wars by the British.
Proof =
First Burma war (1824-28)
Reason - Bengal Frontier was under threat due to expansionist Burma in the 18th and 19th centuries. Burma had made Manipur, Cachar, and then Assam its sphere of influence in the 19th century + after six years of no war after the third Anglo-Maratha war (1817-19), the EIC army wanted something, therefore argued that expansion by Burma inspiring Indian rulers against EIC and this led to first Burma war 1824-28.
Result = treaty of Yandobo = Assam and Nagaland annexed + Arakan, Tenaserin in lower Burma annexed.
Later in 1830, Cachar annexed.
Coorg was annexed in 1834 and Coorg became the first coffee-producing area.
First Afghan War (1838-42)
Reason = Fear of Russia that is, the northwest frontier.
Result = British established indirect rule in Afghanistan.
Sindh was annexed in 1843.
Annexations by Dalhousie - Sambhalpur in 1849, Bhagat in 1850, Udaipur in 1852, Nagpur in 1853, and Jhansi in 1854.
2nd Burma War (1852-53) - annexed Pegu
In 1853, Berar of Hyderabad was annexed instead of subsidy under SA 1798.
In 1856, the annexation of Awadh was on grounds of maladministration.
No more annexations were done after the revolt of 1857. By 1857, India = British India (direct rule of EIC and it was 67% of the territory and 78% of the population), and the rest were 565 princely states (indirect rule via a policy of paramountcy).

Revolt of 1857 - (07:07 PM)

Question) What began as a fight for religion ended as a war of independence as there is no doubt that rebels wanted to get rid of the alien government and restore the old order of which the King of Delhi was the rightful representative. Do you support this view?
1857 revolt = Sepoy mutiny + Civil rebellion/uprising

Reasons - (07:17 PM)

The grievance of Sepoys
Service-related -
a) discrimination between Indian sepoys and European sepoys in salaries and pensions.
b) there was a focus on building a uniform military culture by the British and a decrease in financial expenditure which contributed to the grievances of sepoys.
c) to compensate for high war expenditure, there was a decrease in the salaries of sepoys + in 1856, there was an end of allowance for service outside their region which caused grievance among sepoys.
Socio-religious -
a) there was high racism toward Indian sepoys For Example - were usually referred to as Suar/pigs.
b) there were Christian missionaries in barracks which created fear of conversion among Indian sepoys.
c) Since the 1813 charter act, there was a focus on the westernization of India including the spread of Christianity in India.
d) Also British now tried to develop a uniform culture in the army as it would lead to better control over sepoys, increased unity among sepoys over time, decreased loyalty to caste and religion, and increased commitment to the employer.
e) There was also a rumour of mixing cow and pig bone dust with flour and a rumour of cartridges of the new Enfield rifle that replaced Brown Bess musket, having grease made of cow and pig fat and they were to be bitten off before loading.
Political reasons -
a) Awadh was annexed in 1856.
Agrarian/Economic grievance -
a) Sepoy was a peasant in uniform since he came from a peasant family and therefore was hurt by the loss of family land to the British government due to high land revenue and to the moneylender due to indebtedness.
b) Also now, the rural population joined, therefore sepoy mutiny was followed by civil rebellion.

Reasons for civil rebellion - (07:28 PM)

Feudal elements/Rajas/Nobility –
a) Loss of kingdom due to annexations by the British by application of Doctrine of Lapse or taking over of Awadh on grounds of maladministration led to grievances among dispossessed rulers.
b) These annexations were done in line with the policy of paramountcy. Examples – Satara 1848, Nagpur, Sambalpur, and Bhagat 1850, Udaipur 1852, and Jhansi 1853. (Do-Lapse). Along with Nawab, the entire aristocracy was negatively affected. Therefore, these disposed princes offered leadership.
Big Landowners/Taluqdars/Zamindars -
a) Application of Mahalwari settlement in North-west provinces and Awadh led to the loss of land for Taluqdars as in this system, land ownership in many cases was given to the actual cultivator leading to loss of personal estates for Taluqdars. Therefore, it led to the loss of economic status.
b) British focussed on building a strong centralized state and therefore, private forts and private armies of Taluqdars were disbanded leading to a loss of military status. Now there was to be the rule of law under the British that is equality before the law which hurt their social status and therefore, Taluqdars provided leadership to peasants.
Artisans/Peasants-
a) Artisans were utterly destroyed by the British-made machines as machines produced a cheaper and better quality product.
b) Peasants - High land revenue and indebtedness to moneylenders which lead to landlessness.
Religion -
The whole rural society had a fear that their religion is under threat -
a) Since 1813, there was an inflow of Christian missionaries and there were forced conversions under police protection.
b) The socio-religious reforms of the British, for example - The widow remarriages act 1856 escalated the fear that the British wanted to destroy traditional customs and religious practices.
c) They gave the right of inheritance to those who converted to Christianity and therefore, escalated religious conversions.
d) British began taxing revenue-free lands of religious sects, mosques, and temples and therefore, Hindus and Muslims both felt a threat to their religion, and Pundits and Maulvis spread hatred against the British among the people.
There was a common feeling among the Indians that British rule is immoral due to all of the above-mentioned grievances and therefore, the goal of the 1857 revolt was to restore the pre-British order - political, economic, social, and religious.

Agents - (07:56 PM)

Sadhus and Maulvis were the agents of spreading hatred against the British.

Topics for the Next Class - Dictation of the Revolt of 1857

Modern Indian History Class 16

1857 Revolt (5:02 PM)

On 19 march 1857, Mangal Pandey at Barakhpur at Calcutta fired at British officers and his fellow sepoys refused to arrest him, and all hanged him.
On the 10th of May Meerut sepoys mutiny and reached Delhi on the 11th of May and proclaimed BS Jazar as emperor of Hindustan.
The revolt spread to other contentment in north-west provinces and Awadh and the civil population joined.
British rule collapsed from 11th May till the spring of 1858.
Delhi was recaptured by the British only by 20th September 1857.
Reasons for sepoy mutiny:
Racism:
Discrimination in salaries and pension.
The highest post an Indian sepoy could reach was Subadar which gave only 60-70 rupees a month.
Racist slurs like Indians were referred to as pigs.
Economic reasons:
To compensate for high war expenditure, the salaries of sepoys decreased, and allowance for service outside their region ended in 1856.
Socio-religious reasons:
Initially, EIC recruited sepoys in line with Indian tradition that is upper castes were recruited and their caste and religious customs were respected.
But as the empire expanded different communities joined the EIC army.
Therefore difficult to respect the religious customs of the upper caste.
British tried developing a uniform culture in the army as it would decrease loyalty to caste/religion and increase loyalty to the empire, to have better control over sepoys.
Therefore EIC reduced caste privileges, like wearing religious symbols, food preferences, etc, and sepoys were forced to go abroad to Burma, Sindh, and Afghanistan, leading to caste loss.
And those who refused were punished or dismissed.
Also since the charter act of 1813, there was a focus on the spread of Christianity and Christian missionaries in barracks created the fear of conversion.
The whole rural society has fear that their religion was under threat.
Forced conversion and arrivals of missionaries.
Socio-religious reform post-1801 escalated fears that the British wanted to destroy traditional customs like:
Sati abolition.
Hindu widow remarriage act.
Lex-Loki act(caste disability removal act, removal of religious disabilities act), 1850 gave the right of inheritance to Hindu and Muslim converts to other regions.
British began taxing mosques and temples.
Rumours:
Rumour of mixing cow and pig bone dust in flour.
The cartridges of Enfield rifles replaced brown bass muskets having Greece made up of cow and pig fats.
These bullets were to be bitten off before loading.
Therefore sepoys feared that the British wanted to make them lesser Hindus/Muslims for easy conversion
The revolt began in the Bengal army as high caste identity was still maintained, leading to more unity among sepoys.
Political reasons:
The majority of sepoys in the Bengal army were from Awadh and nearly every family in Awadh sent a member to the EIC army.
Annexation of Awadh was seen as a betrayal and hurt the loyalty of the sepoys.
Agrarian reasons:
Britsih did a summary settlement in Awadh that determined the land revenue demand without proper field surveys leading to high land revenue demand.
In northwest provinces, field surveys were improperly dealing with high land revenue demand.
When peasants could not pay land revenue, they lost land in the government auctions
Peasants became indebted to moneylenders and then lost lands due to defaulting on loans.
Sepoy was a peasant in uniform since he came from a peasant family therefore his loyalty was hurt by British policy.
Therefore the issue of cartridges was only a trigger that gave voice to multiple grievances.
Reasons for civil rebellion:
Grievances of feudal elements:
Loss of kingdoms due to annexation like the doctrine of lapse led to grievances among ex-rulers and nobility.
therefore they offered leadership in the revolt.
For example:
Nana saheb in Kanpur was the adopted son of Bajirao-II and was denied a pension.
He was assisted by Tatia Tope.
Began Hazat Mahal in Lucknow(wife of ex-nawab Wazid Shah) ruled in name of young son during the revolt.
Khan Bahadur Khan, a Rohilla afghan in Bareilly.
Rani Lakshmi Bai in Jansi whose adopted son was not recognized as the next ruler.
Kunwar Singh of Jagdishpur, Bihar was a big Zamindar and local Raja whose estates were taken over.
BS Zafar as Canning announced in 1956 would now be called a prince and he to vacate red fort and shift to humbler Qutab, therefore losing of status.
Grievances of Talukdars:
Application of Mahalwari settlement in north-west provinces and Awadh led to the last of lands/estates as ryots were made legal and owner leading to loss of economic status.
Their private forts were demolished and their private army was disbanded, leading to a loss of political and military status.
British rule of law hurt their social status.
Therefore Talukdars provided leadership to the revolt.
Peasants and Artisans:
Destruction of the handicraft sector due to cheaper machine-manufactured goods imported from Britain hurt artisans' livelihoods.
Landlessness for peasants due to high land revenue demand and indebtedness to moneylenders.
As they lost land in government action on non-payment of land revenue and lost land to money lenders due to default on loans that were given at very high-interest rates.
The new British courts supported money lenders, therefore moneylenders also became targets during the 1857 revolt.
The goal of the revolt was to restore the pre-British order.

Reasons for the victory of the British in the 1857 revolt (6:20 PM)

Sepoys lacked financial resources.
Lack of modern weapons and training among peasants
British had better leadership and a strong centralized bureaucracy, army, and an effective communication system leading to efficient decision-making and coordination.
Tactical mistakes as Sepoys focused on coming to Delhi, therefore movement did not spread properly and the defeat of Delhi meant the defeat of revolt.
Lack of unified leadership on the Indian side as there were multiple regional leaders and no central leadership, therefore coordination suffered.
Due to the localized nature of the uprising British could defeat rebels one after other.
The whole EIC army did not revolt, the Bombay and Madras regiments were quiet, while Punjabi and Gurkha actively helped the British.
The civil rebellion was limited to mainly north and central India and mainly minor participation elsewhere.

Was the 1857 revolt a war of independence? (6:57 PM)

The colonial view is that the 1857 revolt was mainly a sepoy mutiny due there service-related grievances and the civil uprising was nothing but mob violence due to the breakdown of law and order.
However, VD Savarkar called it the Indian war of independence and fought for Swadrama and Swaraj.
Karl Marx also argued that it was a nationalist revolt.
The mainstream stand is that it was much more than mutiny but modern nationalism was not present therefore not a proper war of independence based on modern nationalism.
The whole of India did not participate and those sections that benefited from colonial rule did not participate.
For example, Zamindar of Bengal became a big landlord after a permanent settlement in 1793, therefore stayed loyal to the British.
Those rulers who did not lose their kingdoms stayed neutral.
Western-educated gained from jobs created by British rule and believed that British rule will modernize India.
Talukdars who did not lose their estate stayed loyal.
In Ryotwadi areas like Sindh, Coorg, Assam, and Bengal ryot benefited as they made landowners.
There was no proper planning and the revolt was spontaneous bursts.
There was no modern alternative in form of democracy.
Yes, modern nationalism was absent however common enemy was there.
Common hatred was there against disruption brought by British rule.
That is a common feeling that British rule is immoral
A common fear of threat to religion.
Sepoys' declaration in Delhi went beyond their selfish grievances and listed the following reasons for mutiny:
There was high land revenue demand.
Increase chowkidar tax.
Increase in unemployment of artisans and learned men.
Tol tax for travelling on public roads.
Decrease in the status of in status of Indian ruling class.
Therefore sepoys were fighting all Indians.
The common goal of restoring moral order was disturbed by British rule.
Hindu-Muslim unity was there with belief that Hindustan is for Hindus and Muslims.
All agreed among rebels that Delhi should be the capital and BS Zafar as emperor.
Rebels did not desire the dictatorship of an all-Indian monarch, that does not desire a 17th-century unitary structure but wanted decentralized polity with real power at the province level.
Therefore desired a form of federalism.
Rebels did not want the British not just out of their areas but out of Hindustan.
Also this time there was communication between regional leaders
It was a movement of the masses and not of elites:
Elites were forced to take up leadership in many cases by those who revolted like BS Zafar, Nana Saheb, and Jhansi ki Ranni, therefore initiative was of the common man and in many cases, peasants and artisans continued revolts.
The main initiative was of sepoy and he was a peasant in uniform
Therefore 1857 revolt was led by peasants.

Why 1857 revolt is an important watershed in Indian history? (7:43 PM):

Political impact:
British became distrustful of Indians, and authoritarianism and racism increased.
Indian were now considered racially inferior and beyond reforms and the British did not want Indians in senior positions, therefore did not want to share power with Indians.
They wanted stronger control over India, however, this frustrated educated Indians who wanted a share in power and this anger led to the starting modern nationalism-based Indian national movement.
EIC was blamed for the mismanagement of Indian affairs and public pressure in Britain increased in favour of ending absentee sovereignty(as the real sovereign, the British government ruled India through an agent EIC).
Therefore GOI act of 1858 ended EIC rule and declared queen victoria as the sovereign ruler of India with direct rule over British India and paramountcy over Indian princes.
Therefore queen was now the empress of India and Mughal rule ended legally with BS Zafar being deported to Burma and pensioned off.
Queen's proclamation of November 1858, promised religious tolerance and that India would be governed as per its customs and traditions, therefore spread of Christianity and socio-religious reforms took a backseat.

The topic of the next class: administrative impact of the 1857 revolt.

Modern Indian History Class 17

Political and administrative impact of the 1857 revolt (5:03 PM)

The Governor General of Bengal was replaced with the Viceroy.
Administrative impact:
Now there was a focus on effective policing and intelligence.
1860 police commission led to the Indian police act, of 1861 which set up police structure and functions which continued till 1947 with little change.
Indian police act, of 1861:
The state police concept was implemented properly throughout British India.
Provincial police under the inspector general who reported to the governor/LG.
District police under the superintendent of police who reported to DC/DM
Therefore for 1st time, a proper hierarchy of specialists with a proper chain of command was implemented.
In 1857, a Police Raj was created and Indians were excluded from all senior positions.
Civil services:
The civil services exam was introduced by the Charter of 1853 and Indians could give exams.
The exam was held in London and after 1857, it was ensured that simultaneous exams is not held in India.
The maximum age was kept low between 19-23, this was to prevent Indians from clearing the exam.
Finally, Indian national movement pressure led to exams in India.
1st exam was held in 1922 in India and the decision was GOI 1919.
British military:
After the 1857 revolt, the Peel commission led to the following change:
Prevent homogeneity by having a heterogeneous mix of different castes, in a regiment.
This was to prevent caste-based bonds of unity among sepoys like in the Bengal army in the 1857 revolt.
Prevent inter-region interaction between regional army units to prevent pan-India unity among regiments.
Britsih benefited from the lack of unity between their regional armies in the 1857 revolt.
Now recruitment was done on basis of race, and the idea of a martial race started by the British.
That is Jats, Rajput, and Sikhs were termed as martial races, who were loyal, courageous, and good fighters but lacked leadership skills given the British.
Therefore martial races and those regions which stayed loyal were preferred in recruitment.
British focused on building a culture of loyalty to salt and promoted the idea of sacrifice for the employer for the honour of one community.
Now the British maintained a large standing army, that is an army in peacetime.
British ensured at least a 1:2 ratio between Europeans and Indians in the army.
No Indians in senior military positions.
There was high use of the British army against INM and peasant revolt.
Also British wanted to ensure that sepoys, don't influence by INM, therefore they were kept in barracks as much as possible.

British imperialist ideologies (5:59 PM)

White man's burden:
The idea among western Europeans is that they are a superior civilization and therefore have a responsibility to civilize the rest of the world.
This belief strengthened due to the enlightenment, scientific revolution, industrial revolution, capitalism, etc.
Orientalism(dominated until 1813):
Oriental implies relating to the east.
Orientalists believed in the greatness of ancient Indian civilization and therefore wanted to study Indian scriptures, languages, literature, etc.
Willaim Jones argued in favour of kinship ties between Indians and Europeans.
He argued that Indian and European languages are part of the same family and therefore Indian civilization is at par with European civilization and supported Aryan invasion theory.
However, orientalism supported colonialism as:
Degrataions in the recent past argued orientalist and white man's burden was to restore the glory of ancient times.
The responsibility to restore the golden past was to be with the British and not with Indians, who were seen as incapable of leadership.
Aryan invasion theory implied that even the great past was the product of the west and therefore supported cultural colonialism.
The argument of kinship had the benefit of decreasing opposition to colonial rule.
Orientalists believed in ruling India the Indian way because:
Since the Indian way of life is great thus don't impose the British way of life.
Some believed India is not ready for modern British ideas, therefore preventing the negative reactions from Indians against the British, this also led to less focus on social reforms, and administrative and legal reforms.
Therefore orientalism helped in the smooth transition of power from Indian rulers to British.
The authoritarianism of Cornwallis:
Greater study of the ancient past led to believe among the British that degradation in present is too much.
Therefore attempt should not be to restore the golden past but impose the British system.
He was an authoritarian who imposed the British system of administration and removed Indians from all senior positions.
For example, he was influenced by English landlordism and brought Permanent settlement in 1793.
He was also a racist as he converted the British bureaucracy into an aloof elite, that is he discourages the intermingling of EIC officials with Indians and supported separateness.
Indian were now not allowed in gated colonies of the British and EIC were discouraged from having Indian wives, Eurasians were banned from joining EIC service.
The reason for this was racism and preventing a repeat of the American revolution where the British permanently settled in 13 colonies in the 1600s and then revolted against the British crown, therefore he also banned the purchase of land by EIC officials who had Indian wives.
Authoritarianism leads to the establishment of a strong state which implements rule of law.
By 1813 orientalism came under attack:
and it was argued that it has denied the benefits of British rule to India.
As orientalism prevented Britain from modernization of India.
Therefore now push to the westernization of India to achieve the white man's burden and 3 imperial ideologies emerged.
Liberalism:
British rule should civilize India and liberate it from backwardness rather than the British just conquering India.
This is by giving India the best ideas for the age.
They argued for bringing western education and implementation British legal system with rule of law, westernization of the Indian economy, and social reforms to end social ills.
Utilitarianism:
It argued that it is only good governance that is good laws and their efficient implementation that can modernize India.
James Mill in his book "history of British India" argued that the great Indian civilization is a myth and that what India needs is an effective schoolmaster.
The focus was on utility as supported use of vernacular instead of the English language to spread western education.
It also favoured majoritarianism, that is those laws and actions are goods that maximize benefits for maximum stakeholders.
Evangelicalism:
It argued that the main thing wrong with India is its religion, therefore Christianizing India to modernize India.
The charter act of 1813, led by Charles Grant of EIC legalized the entry of Christian missionaries and there was a push to conversion to Christianity
The charter act of 1813 ended the monopoly of EIC over Indian trade, therefore now the Indian economy was to be westernized with FDI, and the import of technology via non-EIC British business.
Post-1857 revolt high increase in racism and authoritarianism and now the British argued that Indians are beyond reforms.
Now India was not just inferior but also different, that is not a kin of Europeans.
British became distrustful of Indians and present sharing of power in any meaningful manner.

The topic of the next class: Land revenue systems of the British.

Modern Indian History Class 18

Class started (at 5:01 PM)

Land revenue systems (5:10 PM)

Farming system 1772 in Bengal- by Warren hastings (7385), GG Bengal (1773-85).
Bcakground= 1757-65- Plassey Plunder +1765 +over extraction of LR and some hasty experiments to maximise LR collection.
Therefore by 1770, the golden egg-laying goose was killed by the British, that is Bengal the richest province of India suffered from the great Bengal famine of 1770 where 10 million Indians died.
Now, the LnO situation was set and LR income declined rapidly.
Therefore dual government and indirect rule were ended and in 1772 direct rule of EIC began in Bengal.
1772 farming system was introduced to increase LR collection whereby the right to collect LR was farmed out /auctioned to the highest bidder revenue farmer (The revenue farmer is not a farmer).
Orientalism was in operation as this system was similar to the Izaradari system.
Supervision /In-charge of LR collection was to be European DC.
The result was high exploitation of peasants due to huge LR demand by RF leading to no revenue collection at all in many cases.
Tax demand =100, I have 30, pay 0 or pay 30. In both cases, one is a defaulter so I don't pay.
The overall rural population was ruined.
Now Cornwallis (8693) was sent as GG Bengal with the primary goal of LR reforms as LR was now an important source of funding.

Permanent Settlement -1793(PS-1793) by Cornwallis (8693)

PS was influenced by the landlordism and authoritarianism of Cornwallis.
Zamindar was made a legal land owner therefore first-time property rights in land were created.
That is the legal ownership of land.
Therefore land was now saleable, leaseable, mortgage commodity and a land market would gradually come to exist in India.
Reason-
Belief in landlordism or agrarian capitalism or big landowners who worked for profits and have the security of property.
They would make big investments in property.
And therefore food security would be achieved and LR will increase with the increase in production and trade revenue will increase with increased production.
The settlement was done with zamindar.
Reason= ease of collection for government because of a limited number of landowners.
LR was assessed permanently at an absolute amount.
LR is calculated as 10/11 of produce at the time of settlement an amount arrived at was fixed forever.
Reason=Incentive to capitalists for investing in land as an increase in production won't lead to LR demand.
This will lead to food security and greater agrarian polity.
Also, the government will have certainty of LR income.
Even if bad harvest government LR income is not impacted.
Because the government gave up the right to increase LR income therefore LR was decided at the absolute maximum at the time of settlement which is 10/11 of produce.
Also, Cornwallis anticipated a decrease in corruption and the burden of administration(as the assessment workload is now zero).
Sunset Clause-
By the evening of a pre-decided date, the zamindars must pay LR as automatically his lands will be up for auction to anyone who agrees to pay the decided LR.
Jotedars- those who bought these lands in an auction that is relatives of zamindars to keep the land within family and moneylenders etc.
Political-create a loyal class which was rich and socially influential therefore leading to political stability for EIC rule.
1857 revolt Bengal zamindars stayed loyal to the British.
Overall Impact-
in short term many zamindars lost land in the auction as 10/11 of produce was very high LR demand.
Therefore in the short term, the growth of Jotedars.
But in the long term stability came and zamindars did emerge loyal to the British.
British did get certainly and regular inflow of LR.
Failures = Zamindar did not act as an agrarian capitalist as LR demand was very high.
Therefore, nothing was left for investment and agrarian productivity lagged.
Impact on ryots= became landless and rightless since rights of tenants were not recognised by PS 1793 and all rights in land were vested in zamindar.
Therefore now ryots became tenants well with no occupancy rights for them and the operation of high rents as the traditional Patta system wasn't respected.
And abwabs that were illegal were still collected by zamindars.
Therefore the security of property was only for zamindars and not for ryots.

Regulation VII of 1799

Cornwallis had taken away the police powers of zamindars.
Now, under this regulation VII zamindars were given back police powers eg imprisonment, Right to cease property etc
Peasants revolts forced the British to bring the rent act of 1859 in Bengal that gave occupancy rights to those tenants who had cultivated land continuously for more than 12 years and took away police powers.
However, the act was not effectively implemented leading to further peasant unrest.
Therefore finally Bengal tenancy act of 1885 brought relief as the rights of tenants were properly recognised.
Break from 6:59 PM to 7:12 PM
Any tenant riot who has cultivated different pieces of land within the same villages and continuously for more than 12 years was given occupancy rights. (Zamindar used to vacate the tenant from the land before the completion of 12 years so he doesn't have occupancy rights)
BOB went to north madras and settled permanently.
PS-1793 were implemented in Bengal, Bihar Odisha and North madras.

Ryotwari settlement -1792

It was a B-grade scam/Scam B in Sindh, Coorg, Assam, madras, and Bombay.
Alexander reed in madras experimented with ryotwari; then applied the advice of Thomas Munro in madras from 1801-07; then reapplied by Munro as governor of madras from 1820 onwards.
Landowners=Ryot and big landowners suffered the loss of land.
Reason=ideology of Munro.
Munro was from Scotland where a yeoman farmer that is land owner cultivator was championed.
He was an orientalist and argued that in ancient times in India there were no very big landowners and ryot that the actual cultivator was the landowner.
He also argued that PS-1793 was not suited for madras because big zamindars were unavailable.
Deccan always had problems with finances-Anglo -Mysore war.
Therefore removed intermediaries for financial reasons.
He argued that making ryot landowners will increase the political hold of EIC.
A common man that is ryot will become loyal to the state.
The settlement was done with ryot.
The periodic revision was possible that LR was not permanently assessed.
LR could be in percentage terms.
Overall Impact-
Improper field surveys led to unjust LR demand that led to -
1. Ryots becoming indebted to moneylenders and consequent loss of land due to indebtedness that defaults on loans.
2. Loss of land in government action on nonpayment of LR.
3. Mirasidars -were land owner cultivators who joined the lower bureaucracy of the British, had police powers and revenue collection roles and judicial powers and were also corrupt.
They bought the best lands in auctions, therefore gradually emerged as big landowners leading to the rebirth of intermediaries.
They oppressed the ryots so much at the final British acted in form of the Madras Torture Commission report 1885 which finally brought relief to the ryots.
Now proper field surveys were done, LR decreased and Mirasidars was held accountable.

Mahalwari system -1822

The settlement was done with Mahal/Estate/District/Village community represented by the village headman/Lambardar(In most cases say 90%).
Or with zamindar/talukdar is available in 10% of cases.
Assessment of LR was done at the estate level, not per field calculation of LR demand.
LR was to be collected from the village community represented by village headmen and the community decided the individual contribution of each member.
Reason= to respect village-level autonomy.
The landowner is most cases actual ryot and in some cases zamindar.
Therefore malware is equal to PS and Ryotwari in terms of land ownership.
Impact-
Improper field surveys in northwest provinces and summary settlement in Awadh led to unjust LR demand and consequent landlessness due to loss of land in government auction or to moneylenders.
In most cases, zamindars suffered the loss of land and therefore lost economic status.
Therefore ryots and talukdars came together in the 1857 revolt.

The topic for the next class- Is acts till Govt of India act 1858.

Q-1857 revolt acted as a catalyst for the end of EIC rule in India.

Modern Indian History Class 19

Last class revision (5:05 PM)

Regulation of EIC (5:20 PM)

Parliament came to regulate EIC affairs in India by the 1770s due to:
Rise of EIC as it was earning huge profits,
There was the political rise of EIC which was a non-state actor and this made the British state anxious especially after the American war of independence where British settlers started revolting against British rule, therefore the fear of the same in India EIC.
Also, the state wanted a share in EIC profits, therefore in 1767 parliament mandated EIC to annually pay 400,000 pounds to the public exchanger.
The great Bengal famine of 1770 hurt the image of Britain and EIC's conduct went against the idea of the white man's burden and the morality of imperialism
There was huge corruption by EIC officials who returned super-rich from India.
In 1770, EIC requested 10 million pounds of loans from the state as it was going bankrupt.
Important men like clive and warrant hasting wanted a formal relationship with the state to increase their status.
The request for a loan acted as an opportunity for the British state to bring EIC under regulation.
A select committee of parliament 1772:
The purpose of the Committee was:
To look into the state of EIC affairs in India, and the nature of the relationship between the British state and the EIC regarding territory acquired by the EIC in India that is public affairs of the EIC.
EIC had multiple affairs like commercial affairs where it acted as a company and public affairs where it acted as a state.
How EIC Headquarters in London which is a court of directors can best control EIC's administration in India?
The result of the committee was that EIC was allowed to continue its monopoly over trade with India.
However COD of EIC was now to be accountable for EIC's administration in India.
It also led to regulating act of 1773.

Regulating act of 1773/Lord North's act (5.51 PM)

The Importance of the act was that for the 1st time right of parliament to regulate EIC affairs was legally recognized.
The act bought the COD of EIC under the supervision of parliament.
Now COD has so summit all information received from India in civil, military, and revenue matters to the British state.
however commercial matters were kept free from supervision, as only those areas where EIC acted as a state was regulated.
The governor of Bengal was elevated to Governor-general of Bengal.
The governor of Bengal and madras subordinated to the Governor-general of Bengal in matters of war and peace accepted in emergency circumstances.
Governor general of Bengal to collect information on all matters on EIC affairs in India and send the same to the COD of EIC in London.
The Supreme Council of Bengal was created under the Governor-general of Bengal with 4 members/councillors.
That is Governor-general of Bengal was put in a council of 4 to ensure democratic decisions making as all decisions were to be taken on basis of a majority vote of 4 councillors (the Governor-general of Bengal. did not vote).
The Governor-general of Bengal only had a casting vote.
A supreme court at Calcutta with one chief justice and 3 normal judges.
Regulating act 1773 barred the taking of gifts by EIC officials from Indians, therefore focusing on anti-corruption.
4-year tenure of directors of COD of EIC and they could not be reappointed.
A 5-year tenure for the governor-general of Bengal could be reappointed and could be dismissed in between.
Governor of Bombay and Madaras could be dismissed by the governor-general of Bengal if they disobey him on matters of war and peace.
The legislative function was given to the supreme council of Bengal.
Result of the act:
The huge distance between India and England led to poor supervision due to poor communication.
Centralization of power in the governor-general of Bengal began.
Disunity in the supreme council of Bengal and lack of veto power with the governor-general of Bengal led to the problem of indecision.
Vague wordings of "emergency circumstances meet" that in practice meant the governor of Bengal and madras acted independently in matters of war and peace like the treaty of Surat.
the conflict between SC in Calcutta and GG Bengal council due to a lack of clarity in the jurisdiction of both.
The jurisdiction of SC was over all British subjects residing in Bengal and their native servants.
SC was supreme only in name as the High court act led to 3 high courts in 3 presidencies and Culcutta HC was Sadar Nizamat Adalat, and Sadar Diwani Adalat(SC in madras in 1800 and SC in Bombay in 1823).
Amending act of 1781/ Bengal Judicature act/ Declaratory act resolved the ambiguity in the jurisdiction between SC and the Governor-general of Bengal.

Pitt's India act 1784 (7:38 PM)

Public affairs of EIC and EIC's administration in India were brought under the control of the British parliament by setting up a board of control(BOC) in London
For 1st time the phrase "British possession in India" was used but the issue of sovereignty over territory under EIC was still not decided clearly.
BOC had 6 members including 1 of the secretary of state(President of the board), the chancellor of the exchequer, and 4 privy council members.
The role of the BOC was to superintend, direct, and control all acts, operations, and concerns related to civil, military, and revenue government of British territorial possessions in the east indies.
Therefore COD of EIC was a top authority in commercial matters and BOC in public matters.
Therefore Pitt's India act 1784 set up a system of double government for EIC's affairs in India.
COD to send all incoming and count-going letters to India to BOC.
BOC could pass binding orders and also to the Governor-General of Bengal.
Governor-General of Bengal now had two bosses, therefore dual control of the Governor-General of Bengal(in public affairs and not in commercial affairs).
Now a principal servant of EIC could be appointed only after the approval of the British crown, that is Governor-General of Bengal, Governor of Madras, Governor of Bombay, and Commander-in-chief of the EIC army.
Therefore EIC was allowed to retain commerce and patronage.
The Governor-General of Bengal's council's size was reduced to 3 members to solve the problem of indecision and this led to an increase in the Governor-General of Bengal's power over his council(had two votes, a normal and casting vote).
The Governor of Madras and the Governor of Bombay also put in a council of 3.
Governor of Madras and Governor of Bombay subordinated to the Governor-General of Bengal in matters of war, peace, and revenue, and the responsibility of these 3 now more clearly defined.

The topic for the next class: The impact of Pitt's India act 1784

Modern Indian History Class 20

Last class revision (5:02 PM)

Impact of Pitt's India act, 1784 (5:21 PM)

Dual control of GG Bengal, that is 2 bosses(BOC and COD) in practice meant no control as he could play his two masters against each other.
Still no veto power to the Governor-general of Bengal therefore indecision in the supreme council of Bengal continued.
A conflict between the Governor-general of Bengal and the Commander-in-Chief(CIC) of the EIC army, as the decision of war and peace with the Governor-general of Bengal but the right to use the army with the CIC of EIC.
There was a ban on imperial expansion via Pitt's India act 1784 as it stated conquest in India is repugnant to wish, honour, and policy of the British nation, this was because of high war expansion(1789-92 3rd Anglo Mysore war by Cornwallis, despite a ban on conquest because Mysore excepted as an exception by the British government).
Wellesley changed this policy in 1798 and expansion resumed.

Amending act of 1786 (5:41 PM)

It gave veto power to the Governor-general of Bengal over his council in extraordinary circumstances.
EIC was empowered to appoint the same man to 2 posts of Governor-general of Bengal and CIC of the EIC army to end the conflict between the two post holders.
Therefore Cornwallis was the 1st Governor-general of Bengal also to be CIC.
Warren Hasting was the Ist Governor-general of Bengal, William Bentinck was the 1st Governor-general of India and Canning was the 1st viceroy.
The system of controlling EIC setup by Pitt's India act continued until 1858 with very little change.

Charter act 1793 (5:52 PM)

Hallmark concept of Civil law introduced in India.
A code of all regulations for governing Bengal was framed.
These regulations dealt with the rights of persons and property and contained rules and directives and therefore bound the court to follow these regulations while passing orders.
All laws were to be printed in local languages so people know their rights, privileges, and immunities.
The size of BOC decreased and now BOC had a president of BOC and 2 junior members who may not be from the privy council, therefore the concentration of power in the president of BOC increased.
There is the concentration of powers in the president of BOC, London, and Governor-general in India via different acts.
The salary of BOC is to be given by EIC, that is by Indian taxpayer money.
The Governor General of Bengal's power over his council and the governor of madras and Bombay further increased.
Subjects of the crown can not acquire sovereign powers over territory on their own but only on behalf of the crown, therefore the company was to exercise political function/manage public affairs/handle CMR matters and administration matters in India as an agent of the British state.

Charter act 1813 (6:29 PM)

The Hallmark of the act was the begging of the project of the westernization of India.
The background was the act was the industrial revolution in Britain, therefore now Britain wanted to convert India into a source of cheap raw materials and an export market for British machine-manufactured finished goods
High pressure by manufacturers and non-EIC traders to end the monopoly of EIC over trade/business with India that existed since the 1600 charter.
Adam smith in his "An enquire into nature and causes of the wealth of nations" in 1776 argued for a free market economy, therefore the idea of monopoly can be under criticism.
It was argued that opening up the Indian economy would westernize the Indian economy through the transfer of technology and FDI, which would industrialize India, leading to better fulfilment of the white man's burden.
Evangelist Charles grant, a member of COD of EIC, and Liberals and utilitarianism argued for westernizing India to fulfil white man's burden as for them greatest of ancient Indian civilization was a myth.
Provision of Charter act 1813:
The monopoly of EIC over trade with India ended except for the monopoly of tea trade and trade with china.
Entry of Christian missionaries was legalized, and therefore spread of Christianity began.
It talked about the undoubted sovereignty of the British crown over territorial possessions in India.
The goal of British rule was defined as the moral and spiritual upliftment of India.
Therefore now there was a push toward Christianity, western education, and socio-religious reforms
Therefore charter 1813 was the benchmark for the westernization of India.

Chater act 1833/Saint Helana act (7:22 PM)

This is a landmark in the constitutional history of India.
As territory with EIC in India increased and as the inflow of Britishers since 1813 increased, therefore a need for uniform laws and administration in the whole of British India was felt.
Therefore Governor Bengal was elevated to be governor-general of India with direct control over all of the British India civil, military and revenue matters.
The Governor General of India in council was empowered to make laws for the whole of British India and these laws apply to all persons.
The Governor General of India became the executive head o British India and now there was the centralization of legislative and executive authority in the Governor General of India.
Legislative powers of the Governor of Bombay and madras were taken away, therefore centralization that began in 1773 peaked in 1833.
One law member Thomas Macaulay added to the Governor General of India's council.
A grain of separation of power was introduced within the Governor General of India's council.
A law commission was set up under Thomas Macaulay for the codification of laws which was completed by 1837.
However, deliberation and updating continued and full implementation was done after 1857 in the form of the Civil procedure court 1859, the Indian penal code 1860, and the criminal procedure code 1862.
EIC lost its monopoly of trade with china and tea trade in India, therefore the commercial function of EIC ended.
EIC now only had a political function as an agent of the British crown.
BOC supervisory power extended to all administrative affairs in India.
President of BOC now called minter for Indian affairs.
Judiciary opened to Indians.
Lower civil service is now open to Indians.

Charter act of 1853 (8:00 PM)

This renewed the charter but not for 20 years and only till parliament otherwise specify.
Big blow to EIC as now patronage of EIC was ended as the Civil services exam was introduced by Charter 1853.
Separation of power was introduced within the governor-general council as 6 more legal members were added
Since Indians could give civil service exams, covenanted civil service opened for Indians.

Government of India act 1858 (8:06 PM)

Administratively more continuation than change.
The President of BOC was replaced by the secretary of state for India and now be central authority and director of policy for India.
BOC was replaced by the India council/ council of India which was to have 15 members and was headed by SOS for India.
Dual control of the governor General ended as he now reported only to SOS for India.
Governor General replaced by Viceroy.
No change in power of the Governor-General.
The sovereignty of India now with the British crown.
Bahadur Shah Zafar pensioned off to Burma.
The policy of subordinate isolation was replaced by a policy of the sub-ordinate union, therefore Indian rulers were legally part of the British empire in India.
Via the royal titles act of 1876 Queen was empowered to take the tile of Kaiser-i-Hind.
In 1877, in Delhi durbar, the Queen's victory got coronated as Kaiser-i-Hind.

The topic of the next class: is EIC administration.

Modern Indian History Class 21

EIC administration (5:07 PM)

Judiciary:

The focus of the justice system was on a compromise between two-party and not on punishment.
British argued that there was the absence of a rule of law, that is equality before the law and uniform application of law as pandits and maulvis interpreted the religious laws differently in different cases.
The background of the party to the case influenced the interpretation and application of the law.
Dual government in Bengal, 1765-72:
Mohammad Reza Khan headed Diwani for EIC and Nizamant on behave of Nawab.
As EIC did not want to change the administration much due to the ideology of orientalism, therefore Indian officials continued to be decision-makers.
Direct government, 1772:
EIC implement its administration and rule because:
They believed that the British administration would be more efficient leading to better law and order and more revenue collection, which that's down since the great Bengal famine, in 1717
To fulfil the white man's burden by proving a fair administration without nepotism and a rule of law equally applicable to all Indians, therefore, ending any feudal privileges.
It would allow EIC to establish its sovereignty in minds of the people
That is to establish firm control in the polity of Bengal by removing Indians from senior positions in the administration.
British judicial system in Bengal:
Warren hastings system of 1772:
In Diwani Adalats at the district level, European DC was also made the judge, however, assisted by pandits and maulvis.
In Nizamat Adalats at the district level, Qazis and Muftis were contained to head the court but were now put under the supervision of European DC.
EIC accused Pandits and Maulvis of corruption since law and order and criminal justice were sensitive subjects, therefore, a continuation of Qazis and Muftis.
Sadar Diwani and Nizamat were now to be headed by Governor General and his council members
There was a conflict between GG of Bengal and SC at Calcutta setup under regulation act 1773, due to a lack of clarity in the jurisdiction of the two.
Changes in Judiciary in 1773:
Separation of power at the level of European officials was implemented, that is a European officer who was a DC was not to be a judge at the same time and vice-versa, to prevent conflict of interest
To bring justice physically closer to people, Diwani Adalats at the district level were replaced with 18 Mofussil courts headed by Europen officials/judges.
SC at Calcutta:
Judges appointed by the crown.
It was set up in 1774 under regulating act of 1773.
In 1781, the Bengal judicature act defined the jurisdiction of SC at Calcutta as:
All cases in Calcutta.
All cases relating to EIC property at fort Williams.
All cases involving British-born subjects, except for acts done by EIC officials in their official capacity(these cases went to GG Bengal).
King's bench in London heard cases against principal servants of EIC in India(for example a corruption case against GG Bengal).
HC in Madras 1800 and HC in Bombay 1823.
In 1775, a committee of 11 pandits and in 1778 a committee of Qazis and Muftis were set up for the codification of Hindu and Islamic law respectively so there are no different subjective interpretations of Hindu/Islamic law.
In 1781, a code of 1781 made written orders compulsory and rules for courts functioning framed.

Cornwallis code 1793 (6:22 PM)

Cornwallis reintroduced the separation of power at the level of European DC to reduce abuse of power by revenue officials, therefore protecting the property rights of Zamindars.
4 provincial courts of appeal were added to reduce the overall judicial burden.
All courts were headed by European judges, therefore Indians were removed from all senior positions in the judiciary due to corruption by Qazis and Muftis.
The office of Naib/Nazim was now abolished.
Appoimnetnet of Wakils/ lawyers allowed to fight cases therefore a new class of lawyers emerged in India.

The judicial system in Ryotwari areas (6:55 PM)

Ryots were made land owners and therefore courts were overburdened due to large numbers of property owners and therefore a large number of revenue-related disputes.
District courts were physically far away for poor ryots living in the village, therefore Bengal system was replaced in 1884 in madras on the advice of Thomas Munro.
Separation of power was ended at the level of DC, which was also given judicial powers so he and his subordinates can dispose of cases at ground level.
This also led to greater Indianization of the judiciary at lower levels.
Extended to Bombay in 1819, Elphinstone.

Codification of laws (7:01 PM)

Under Macaulay, the legal member was added to the Governor General of India council via the Charter of 1833.
The result was CPC, IPC, and CrPC codes.
Indian High Courts act 1861, led to 3 high courts in 3 presidencies in 1865 example SC at Calcutta, Sadar Diwani, and Nizamat were merged from the HC of Culcutta.

Police (7:07 PM)

The Mughal system of police continued until 1781.
1781 system of Warren Hastings:
Zamindars at the village level reported to DC/DM.
Zamindars atrocities because of improper supervision due to an inadequate number of DC.
Cornwallis system/Daroga system:
At district level DC/DM and below then Daroga at thana level.
Each thana had 30 sq. miles of the area under it.
Police powers of Zamindars taken way.
The district was divided into thanas.
The result was the system failed and the Daroga-Zamindar nexus became an instrument of coercion in the 1800s as zamindar bribed Darogas, therefore illegally having armed men.
Cornwallis blamed Indians for the negatives of the system.
It was applied to Madras in 1802 and the negatives of this led to its removal and police powers were given to lower bureaucrats under DC/DM, which led to oppression by Mirasidars.
Indian police act 1861:
Therefore for the 1st time, a well-defined hierarchy of specialists with a clear chain of command from top to bottom was set up.
After the 1857 revolt, the British ensured Indias are excluded from all senior positions
Police Commission 1902 recommended the appointment of educated Indians in the police force, however, Indian stopped in ranks where European. began because the British did not trust Indians.

Civil services (7:32 PM)

Cornwallis reduced patronage, that is promoted merit-based selection, increased salaries to curb corruption, ended private trade by EIC officials, and reintroduced separation of power at the level of DC.
Cornwallis is also known as the father of civil services.
He organized civil service into covenanted and uncovenanted civil service.
In 1833 lower bureaucracy and judicial positions opened to Indians by Charter 1833.
In 1853 covenanted civil service was opened to Indians as Charter 1853 prescribed an exam for civil service that was opened to Indians.
In 1855, 1st civil service exam was held.
With the 1857 revolt, the British ensured that the exam continues to be held only in London and the age limit was kept low.
In 1860, there was pressure from the Indian national movement for the Indianization of civil service.
In 1878, Lytton brought the statutory civil services act of 1878.
Under statutory civil services, Indians could be nominated to officer rank but Lytton ensured that only loyal Indians are nominated.
In the Indian council act of 1892, statutory civil service was abolished and covenanted CS was renamed to Indian CS, and uncovenanted rearranged to provincial CS.
GoI act 1919, the decision for simultaneous CS exam in India and 1st held in 1922.

The topic of the next class: Socio-religious reforms.

Modern Indian History Class 22

A Brief Overview of the Previous Class:(05:29:00 PM)

Social Religious Reform:(05:32:00 PM)

Introduction:
Till 1813 orientalist ideology operated therefore non-interference by the British in the socio-religious domain.
This was also beacuse of the desire to prevent the negative reaction from Indians.
However 1813+Orientalism gave way to liberalism, evangelicalism, and utilitarianism, therefore the push for the westernization of India.
Therefore western education and social reforms were introduced by the British mainly after 1813.
Regarding education, the debate on western education vs Indian education from 1813-33,- Settled in 1835, in favor of western education, in the English language via Macaulay's Minute on education in 1835.

Reasons for Push for Western Education:(05:41:00 PM)

1. Decrease the cost of administration by having Indians in lower bureaucracy.
2. Create a loyal class in form of the educated middle class(Brown Sahebs) argued Macaulay- That is Indian from outside British from Inside as western education glorified the British, therefore increasing the stability of the British Rule.
3. To create a market for British goods and therefore increase British exports.
4. Middle-class Indians supported western education due to their personal interests in jobs created by British rule(bureaucracy, lawyers, doctors, teachers, engineers, etc.) + they believed that only western education and western sciences can modernize India and lead to industrialization.
For educated Indians social reforms were also a response to the British civilizational critique of India that increased in the 19th century and now the British argued that the greatness of Indian civilization was a myth.
Therefore cultural nationalism was a reason for social reforms as reformers wanted to prove that:
a. Indian scriptures do not support social ills.
b. To prove that in practice India can achieve the greatness of the past and therefore Indian civilization was not inferior.

Two groups of early social reformers(1st half of 19th century:(06:01:00 PM)

1. Those who relied purely on logic/reasons/rationality to argue for social reforms.
2. Those who use scriptures to argue for social reforms and therefore tried to find support for logic/reasons/rationality in Indian scriptures.
Therefore they argued that true Indian religion supports social reforms and is in line with the Doctrine of Reason and Humanism.
Humanism= focus on the happiness of Man in all spheres of life.
This was also to have greater acceptability of suggested reforms.
However, for both kinds of reformers logic/reasons/rationality was infallible(non-negotiable) therefore even when they(2nd kind) argued that Vedas are superior, in case of a clash between reason and scriptures, they would support the reason, and would argue for re-interpretation or even change in scriptures.

Print Culture:(06:13:00 PM)

There was a push to promote print culture by British men like John Malcolm(Governor of Bombay), Charles Metcalfe(GGI 1835-36), etc.
Western-educated middle class also took to print culture and therefore there was the development of press and journalism in India.
Social reformers used the press as the main tool for discussing and debating the western sciences, scriptures, and social reforms.
Social Issues:
Idol worship, Priestcraft, child marriage, no widow marriage, infanticide, casteism, polygamy, and polytheism.
Wellesley Banned Child Sacrifices in Sagar Island, Bay of Bengal.
Henry Vivivan Derazio and his Young Bengal Movement(1830s)-
Derozio was a Eurasian teacher at Hindu College, Calcutta, and he and his students= are Young Bengal.
Their primary focus was on using reason/rationality, questioning everything, western sciences, and on atheism.
Therefore they argued for the reforms only based on the Doctrine of reason and negated religion.
Derozio instigated free thinking among his students, they intellectually challenged orthodoxy in Hinduism.
Like RRR(Raja Ram Mohan Roy), The Young Bengal also demanded trial by jury, separation of powers, Indianization of Civil Services, and freedom of the press- Demands outside social reforms.
They set up the Society for the acquisition of general Knowledge(1838) where they debated/discussed western sciences and social reforms.
Result= failed because they could not develop any mass movement for social reforms due to their total faith in logic reason, rationality, and no regard for religion while the target population was deeply religious.
Therefore they got alienated from the masses.
However, they became famous due to their radical ideas(they Became notorious for eating non-veg and drinking wine).

Raja Ram Mohan Roy & his Brahmo Samaj(1828)(06:57:00 PM)

RRR is called the father of modern India.
A student and scholar of Vedas, Christianity, Persian, and Sanskrit literature.
He came to believe that Vedas are the superior and supported doctrine of reason.
RRR believed that social reforms are not possible without religious reforms as many social practices were rooted in religion and the high importance of religion in Indian social life.
RRR was against other worldliness+ against the doctrine of Karma(Acts of Past life determining the present life)+ against the doctrine of the incarnation(God's human births).
However, Brahmo Samaj(BS)(1828) took no definitive stand regarding Karma and the transmigration of the Soul(Rebirth) and left the belief to individual Brahmo Samajists.
(Positives, for example, good deeds in the present life for a better next life + removal of fear of death due to next birth,+ These two are among the core belief of Hinduism, therefore preventing alienation from the masses).
His response to the British criticism was to go back to the pure past of Vedas(Ideal social life), therefore agreeing that there is degeneration in the present time.
But also argued in favor of the glorious ancient past.
However, for him, rationality was infallible and not the Vedas.
Wanted Western education and western sciences instead of Indian education as for him only western education could modernize India(*Indian polity, economy, and society).
Example, opposed the setting up of Sanskrit College in Calcutta in 1824 by the government. (wanted tax payer's money to be spent on western education).
His ideas and efforts influenced the decision in favor of western education in the English language by Macaulay's Minute(1835), which became the main policy document on education in India.
For achieving social reforms he set up BS(1828).
BS worked against idolatry, priestcrafts, Sati, and Polytheism.
RRR argued that caste divides which is why modern nationalism and a sense of unity lacking among the Indians.
RRR used Upanishads and translated them to Banga- to prove that Hinduism favors Monotheism(that there is only one God within Hinduism )and universalism(Hindu god= Christian God= Islamic God= God is one.)
RRR took the help of the British authority (legislative, executive, and judiciary authority of British) and of British personalities for his social reforms.
For example, worked with William Bentic, for the abolition of Sati.
Sati:
Reasons:
Greed of relatives was the primary reason as they did not want to share the property with the widow.
Stereotype of an ideal wife.
Sati was not a widespread phenomenon and existed mainly in Bengal among the upper castes.
Earlier in Viajaynagar Empire+ Rajputana as Jauhar, but for diffrent reasons(Chastity/dignity.)
In the 1800s, it was started even in lower castes due to desire for the social mobility(better status for one's caste in the caste hierarchy).
Missionaries opposed Sati but failed, therefore the main role of Roy in the Sati abolition in 1829.
Scriptures-based debates took place between reformists BS and orthodox sections led by Dharma Sabha of Radha Kanta Deb.
William Bentic made it a precondition for the abolition of Sati by law, that it be proven that Sati is not in line with the scriptures. (Notice the orientalism of Betic)
Roy proved that "Sati is the murder as per every Shastra". Sati abolition Act 1892 was passed.

Brahmo Samaj(BS)1828:(07:46:00 PM)

Debendra Nath Tagore(DBT):
He took over leadership after the death of Roy(1833).
Brahmoism/BS was a major religious movement based on monotheism among the educated middle-class upper castes Bengalis(Not among the masses).
DBT gave organizational strength to BS.
Keshab Chandra Sen(KCS) was a radical reformer while DBT was a gradualist(wanted gradual reforms)(*Mild goals Mild methods).
KCS was radical as he argued strongly in favor of women-related reforms. For example, against child marriage and pro-widow remarriage(WR)+ attacked casteism and questioned high caste leadership of BS, and supported inter-caste marriages.
Issues of caste and women were considered sensitive by gradualists like DBT in the early 19th century. Therefore DBT feared the alienation of Hindus from BS.
KSC tried to make BS a mass movement by spreading it among the common man, outside Calcutta, and even outside Bengal.
KCS started missionary activities(wanted Brahmoism as an alternate religion to Hinduism) while DBT did not want this. (Strong methods)
Radicalism of KCS and differences with DBT caused a split, therefore KCS set up BSOI(Brahmo Samaj of India,1866) and DBT set up Adi Brahmo Samaj, 1866(Adi=Origianl).
Efforts of KCS led to the Brahmo Marriages Act, of 1872, under which WR and intercaste marriages were legally valid(Lord Mayo). It failed because it required the Bride and groom to leave Hinduism and convert to Brahmoism.
Fruthe split in BSOI when KCS married off his married his minor daughter, therefore now the formation of the Sadharan BS(1878)
Therefore BS failed due to personality differences in goals and methods and due to multiple splits.

Maharashtra:(08:10:00 PM)

1. Paramhansa Mandali(1849):
It worked like Young Bengal, therefore failed like them.
2. Prathan Samaj(PS 1867):
Set up by Atmaram Pandurang+ efforts of KCS.
Main personalities: MG Ranade, RG Bhandarkar, and KT Telang.
Strong Goals but mild methods.
Focussed on social reforms including issues of women and caste, therefore had goals like KCS, but followed the method of gradualism as did not want a break from Hinduism, therefore methods like DBT.
PS opened branches outside Maharashtra. For example, Gujarat, Karachi, and Madras.
(Slow progress of social reforms in madras due to high casteism + slow progress of western education.)

Topics for the next class: Child Mariage, and other social reforms.

Modern Indian History Class 23

Child marriage (5:00 PM)

Reasons:
The Gharbhandhan ceremony has a religious basis as per which marriage before puberty and consummation of marriage post-puberty.
Due to religious basis, not just a socio-religious issue, therefore high use of scriptures by reforms and orthodox Hindus.
Efforts of Vidyasagar led to the age of consent act of 1860, which set the minimum age of consummation at 10 years.
AK Dutt cited medical opinion against child marriage.
Rukhmabai case, 1884-88:
Rukhmabai was married as an infant and after a decade of separate living, she argued that marriage was invalid.
22 years Rukhmabai was taken to court by her husband for denial of conjugal rights.
Rukhmabai's defence committee of reforms was led by Malabari whose 1884 note on child marriage and enforced widowhood has created enormous controversy.
The Orthodox Hindu supported Rukhmabai's husband.
Rukhmabai lost the case.
Two years later in 1890 death of 11-year-old Phulmoni due to sexual abuse by her husband led to the age of consent bill 1891, which set the minimum age of consummation at 12 years.
Now a massive controversy as orthodox Hindus who controlled the masses opposed the bill.
Tilak argued that the British had no right to interfere in Indian customs and religion and that any reform should be the product of not government action but social movements of Indians.
RG Bhandarkar of Pune Deccan college showed by research on Dharmashartas that Hinduism allows marriage post-puberty.
Overall reforms against child marriage failed.

Widow Remarriage (5:20 PM)

The problem of child widows existed existed existed existed existed existed due to child marriage and the high age gap.
Efforts of Vidyasagar led to the Hindu Widow remarriage act of 1856, however upon remarriage, the woman lost the right to the property of her dead husband.
In Maharastra Vishnu Shastri Pandit in 1866 and Telugu-speaking areas of Madras Vir Salingam Pantalu set up a society for Widow remarriage, therefore the debate continued even after the 1856 law.
Jyotiba Phule in Maharashtra made efforts among lower castes for Widow remarriage but he failed.
Pandita Ramabai in Maharastra married late and married a man from a lower caste
She later got widowed and worked for women-related reforms.
She set up a widow's home in Maharastra.
Orthodox Hindus finally won the scripture-based debates, that is Hinduism does not allow widow remarriage.
Due to huge debate, the issue became popular and now the lower caste, which earlier practised widow remarriage stopped it.
By the 1900s only 38 Widow remarriage in Maharastra.
It succeeded only in Haryana as here it was already being practised.

The character of reforms (5.33 PM):

These reforms were led by upper caster western educated brahmins.
Major focus on women-related reforms, since the British used the benchmark of the status of women to decide the status of civilization.
However no leadership of women, and this hurt success of reforms.
They were led by brahmins but were anti-priest.
They were a response to the criticism of Indian civilization by the British that increased post-1813.
They were inspired by the doctrine of reason and Humanism.
Reliance on British legislative and executive authority, therefore top-down reforms and not based on any mass movement.
This hurt the success of reforms and reformers did not even try to build a mass movement.
For example, Roy used complex sanskrtized Bengali Pores not understood by the common man.
Prathana samaj only had 72 members, therefore reforms target was only the upper caste.
Also, the leadership of only the upper caste, therefore lower castes could not associate, and no women leadership, thus no mass movement
The use of British authority led to distrust among the masses towards reforms.
The primary importance was of scriptures as reforms, Orthodox section and British gave primary importance to scriptures.
Therefore reforms searched for modernity/rationality within scripture and did not suggest the adoption of British culture on grounds that it was superior.
Reformers stayed largely silent on issues of castism and even on women's issues in the early phase, as these issues were considered too sensitive and reformers feared alienation from upper-caste Hindus and they were themselves from upper caste and therefore neglected caste issues.
Most followed the method of gradualism.
There existed rival organizations of the orthodox section having greater support from the masses.
Differences in goals and methods contributed to the failure of reforms like in Bharmo samaj.

Post-1857 reformers (6:06 PM):

Post-1857, there was a shift toward greater cultural nationalism and also towards revivalism from the reformism of pre-1857.
Revivalism meant a stronger assertion of Indian traditions.
There was now greater assertion based on cultural nationalism by reformers as well like Ramkrishna Paramhans, Swami Vivekananda, and Swami Dayananda Saraswati.
As per negative revivalism Hindu past was glorious and degeneration took place under Muslim and Christain rule, also not just Hinduism is superior but other religions are inferior.
In contrast, culturally nationalist reformers believed in universalism that all religions lead to God and that God is one.
Ramkrishna Paramhans:
He was an ascetic.
He believed in mediation, renunciation, and monotheism.
He did not directly criticize colonial rule but due to his pure focus on Hinduism, rejected western values indirectly.
Swami Vivekananda:
He believed in the superiority of Hinduism but also in Universalism.
He set up the Ramakrishnan mission in name of his guru in 1897 to spread ideas of Vedanta and social work.
He argued that a Christian could be a better Christain if he followed the Philosophy of Vedanta, therefore did not focus on conversion but on the values of Vedanta.
He argued for the idea of Daridra Narayan, that God Resides in everyone including the poor and that service of Jeeva is the worship of Shiva, therefore believed in social work as a path to spiritualism.
Argued that Indian masculinity is superior to western masculinity as the former focus not just on physical strength but also on mental spirituality.
Therefore Indians are not feminine as argued by the British and Indian masculinity is superior, he started a movement for setting up Akharas/gyms.
He believed in the supremacy of Vedas and accepted idolatry and some Hindu rituals as they simply help develop religiosity, this led to his greater acceptability in the masses.
He represented Hinduism at the parliament of religions in Chicago, USA in 1893, therefore raising the prestige of Indian culture, and argued here that western materialism and Indian spirituality should come together for the welfare of mankind.
Netaji Bose called him the spiritual father of INM in Bengal, therefore represents cultural nationalism and pride without being communal.

Arya Samaj, 1875 (6:48 PM):

It was started by Swami Dayananda Saraswati a radical reform.
He believed in Vedas are infallible(supremacy of Vedas).
Real scientific truths and rationality are there in the Vedas.
Promoted Hinduism as a religion of books (book authority is final) like Islam and Christianity.
The goal was to go back to the pure Vedic past.
therefore Arya samaj was an aggressive response to British criticism and racism.
Strongly argued against caste system and untouchability and promoted intercaste marriages.
Supported varnashrama for organizing society.
He strongly opposed idolatry, priestcraft, infanticide, child marriage, polytheism, and polygamy.
He strongly supported widow remarriage and women's education.
Failed because demanded radical reforms therefore did not get the support of orthodox Hindus and gradualist reforms.
Was successful in Punjab and the northwest provinces
After 1883 Arya samaj became revivalist and now began the Shuddhi movement for conversion to the Hindu movement
In response, Sikhs started the Singh sabha movement and Muslims started Tanzim and Tabligh movement.
Arya samaj also began the Cow protection movement and there were communal riots in 1893, therefore increase in communal tensions post-1883.

Peasants revolts and Tribal uprisings (7:25 PM):

Was the 1857 revolt the culmination of small and big rebellions in 1st 100 years of British rule?
Highlight the similarity between the various grievances and causes.
As previous efforts failed they rose in collectivity in 1857.
Grievances of peasants in pre-1857:
Farming system of 1772 Bengal- oppression by revenue farmers who overexerted land revenue and had the support of British officials.
In Permanent settlement, 1793 main oppressor was zamindar who extracted high rents and extracted Abwabs which were now illegal and had no occupant rights for tenants and Ryots.
Zamindars were supported by British officials and courts.
In Ryotwadi and Mahalwari systems, there was high land revenue by the British, loss of land in a government auction, high-interest rates by money lenders, and loss of land due to indebtedness to money lenders.
Contact farming oppression by indigo planters in Bengal who forced ryots to cultivate indigo in 25% of occupied land, indebtedness to planters who forced ryots to take advances for buying indigo seeds and seeds drills.
Ryots were not given a remunerative price for indigo cultivation which led to the continuation of indebtedness, therefore ryots against forces to take further loans from planters to cultivate indigo.
Soil productivity is greatly by indigo cultivation, if ryots refuse then vacated from the land by planters, which is no occupancy rights.
Therefore oppressor is the indigo planter and British courts since the contract is enforceable and oppressed by Indian agents of planters.
The grievance was that religion was under threat due to Christian missionaries and the British ending revenue or rent-free tenure on lands of religious sects.
Religion helped in giving organization in form of leaders and unity among those who revolted especially when a sect revolted.

The topic of the next class: Grievances of tribals.

Modern Indian History Class 24

Tribal Grievances (5:02 PM)

The two issues were tribal autonomy and living in the forest.
The grievance was that their agrarian order and life were turned upside down by British rule and outsiders in form of:
British laws.
British land revenue system.
British government officials.
Outsiders in form of zamindars, revenue farmers, merchants, and money lenders.
British businesses due to railroad constructions, mining, and commercial exploitation of the forest, for example, greed for timber.
Christain missionaries for the spread of Christianity.
The primary concern of the British was land revenue extraction, therefore in many cases, zamindars of planes were made landowners of tribal areas.
Forest land was farmed out to revenue farmers.
In some cases, the tribal chief was recognized as the land owner and tribals as tenants, and in some cases tribals as land owners.
Now there was indebtedness to moneylenders due to now land revenue system of the British and oppression on account of high land revenue.
Tribals lost land to outsiders.
The autonomy of tribal chiefs and tribals was hurt because of the application of British law in civil and criminal matters.
British law banned Jhum cultivation/Podu/Slash & Burn cultivation and banned hunting because the British wanted to settle peasant communities for easy land revenue collection and maximize land revenue.
There was the loss of homes for tribals because British forest law categorizes forests into reserves where no access to tribals( protected), where tribals can use forest produce but only for personal consumption and not for sale, and uncategorized that were open to all.
Loss of home due to land acquisition on account of railroad projects.
Tribals were made to force labour on these projects.
Missionaries post-1813 led to religious interference.
Peasant revolts were civil uprisings where leadership was provided by elites like Rajas, nobility, Zamindars, etc.
The INM leaders called the Pre-1857 revolt the prehistory of modern nationalism.
Western-educated middle class supported and benefited from British rule while peasants and tribals defied British rule violently.

Civil uprisings pre-1857 (5:30 PM)

Raja Chait Singh of Banaras revolted because removed due to non-payment of revenue, 1778-81.
Deposed Nawab Wazir Al in Awadh revolted in 1799 with present support.
Bundela chiefs of Bundelkhand revolted with peasant support due to interference by British resident post-subsidiary alliance signed after the 2nd Anglo-Maratha war 1803-05.
Poligars revolted from 1799-1805 due to loss of status due to British rule of law and Ryotwari in madras and high land revenue demand that hurt ryots.
Dewan Velu Thampi of Travancore revolted with peasant support in 1809 due to interference by the British resident post-subsidiary alliance of 1805.

Revolts where peasants took initiative pre-1857 (5:40 PM)

Rangpur rebellion in 1783 in north Bengal against oppression by revenue farmers.
Mysore 1830-31, the revolt by peasants against the Wodyer dynasty and British agents due to high Land revenue.
Religion played important role in following the pleasant revolt.
Sanyasi and Fakir rebellion in Bengal and Bihar from 1760-1850 with a peak in 1800 where 50,000 members fought against the British.
The reasons were high rents, the end of rent-free tenures, and the domination of the domestic trade of Bengals by EIC agents.
Pagalpanthis revolt in east Bengal in 1823-33 due to oppression by zamindars under the permanent settlement.
Titu Mir in 24 Parganas in 1831 due to oppression by zamindars and indigo planters.
Faraizi revolt in the 1830s in Bengal by Dudu Main due to oppression by zamindars and indigo planters.
Mapilla/Moplah revolt in Malabar in 1840s:
They were the Muslim ryots.
It was against the oppression by big landlords that were Janmies who were Hindu.
It took communal colour because of the specific identities of ryots and landlords.

Tribals uprising Pre-1857 (5:50 PM)

Kol uprising 1831-32:
In the Chotanagpur and Singhbubham regions of Bihar and Orissa
The reason was the influx of outsiders.
When the raja of Chotanagpur farmed out lands to merchants and moneylenders.
Khasi uprising 1833:
The reason was Brahmaputra valley and Sylhet road led to the loss of land and influx of outsiders that is British businesses and British officials.
It was led by Tirith Singh.
Santhal rebellion, 1855-56:
By santhals under Sido and Kahnu Murmu.
The reason was the loss of their fatherland in Rajamahal hills(Jharkhand) to outsiders(Dikus).
British gave tribal land to non-Santhal zamindars and moneylenders and there was also railroad construction.
50,000 Santhals died fighting.

Characters of pre-1857 revolts (5:57 PM)

Modern nationalism was missing as were not all-India movements.
No coordination with each other.
No outside leaders.
Lack of proper planning.
Was spontaneous in many cases.
The goal was not democracy.
However, they are called the prehistory of modern nationalism as they were political and had anti-colonial sentiment.
A political movement has an ideology, organization, or program and is public.
Ideology was there as they wanted to bring back the moral order disturbed by British rule.
Therefore anti-colonial ideology was there.
Political symbolism was there in form of grand marches and an example idea of fatherland/Damien-i-Koh of Santhals.
Religion-based bonds in form of sects provided organization and leaders.
The organization was evident as in many cases they set up their government, collected self-imposed tax, and set up their courts.
Programs were there, large meetings were held and planning was done by Santhals.
Peasants and tribals knew their oppressors and tools of oppression, they did not attack the life of oppressors in many cases but their property, and account books of money lenders.
Santhals declared that traditionally they have hunted animals and now they hunt their oppressors.
Crimes were done secretly while political action was public and their revolt was public, for example, Santhals gave a prior warning to the British in 1855 before revolting.

Tribal revolt Post-1857 (6:48 PM)

Munda/Ulgulan revolt,1899-1900:
In chotanagpur ledby Birsa munda.
The reason was the loss of land to outsiders and missionary activities by Christian missionaries.
The action was people came to believe in the supernatural power of Birsa, therefore religion, in this case, gave them the courage to rise against the mighty British.
Religion also provided narrative as Brisa compared British rule with Kalyuga and similar to the rule of Ravana's wife Mandodiri.
Political symbolism was present as Munda's revolted on Christmas of 1899.
Rampa/Fituri Rebellion,1879:
In Rama Hills of Andra Pradesh.
The reasons were:
Commercial exploitation of forests.
Road construction led to the loss of land.
Loss of land to merchants and moneylenders.
Restrictions on the use of forest resources.
Prohibitions on Podu.
Tax on Toddy.
Fituri was led by Muttdaras who were local estate holders/land owners.
It was crushed by 1880 and in 1920-22 NCM tribals did the violation of forest laws and then Alluri Sitarama Raju who had led the Gandhian struggle revolted violently as he believed that India can be liberated only by force.
Therefore now continued the tradition of Fituri and he was executed in 1924.

Early Indian National movement/post-1857 peasant movements and revolts (7:03 PM)

New features emerged in the peasant moment of post-1857.
Peasants showed greater awareness of British laws and institutions and organized themself politically.
Now middle class began taking up leadership of peasants, therefore, beginning of early INM.
Indigo revolt, 1859-63 in Bengal:
Background:
In 1788, EIC began indigo plantations by giving loans to 10 European planters in Bengal.
European planters leased land from Zamindars(forced by EIC).
The Indigo system of cultivation was the Nij cultivation of Bengal.
Planters bought or hired land and hired labour for the cultivation of indigo had to buy large lands and mobilize labour and bullocks which was a challenge.
In the Ryoti system, Bengal leased large land from Zamindars, and planters signed contracts with tenant ryot where ryot must grow indigo on at least 25% of occupied land.
Planters gave advances and loans on low-interest rates to ryot and gave indigo and seed drills.
The Tinkathia system in Bihar was the same as the Ryoti system but here forced to grow indigo on 15% or 3/20 of occupied land.
In pre-1857 revolts aginst indigo planters were Titu Mir in 24 parganas and Faraizi revolt under Dudu Mian in east bengal.
Fertility of soil destroyed by Indio cultivation.
The revolt began due to a fall in international prices of indigo and forced cultivation and perpetual indebtedness to planters.
The trigger was emphatic LG of Bengal who asked DCs to take the side of ryots.
Ryots refused advances and refused to cultivate indigo and did a social boycott of agents of indigo planters.
Zamindars support ryots as against the domination of the rural economy by indigo planters.
Use of British courts as planters went to court to enforce contracts of indigo cultivation.
Now ryots began the no-rent campaign and planters tried to evict ryots.
Now ryots went to court to enforce their occupancy right under the rent act 1859.
Role of educated middle-class and Christain missionaries:
Dinbandhu Mitra wrote the play, Neel Darpan, in 1860, which showed the oppression of ryots and therefore increased awareness.
Bengali poet Micheal Madhusudan Dutta translated the play into English and Christian missionary James Long published it leading to awareness in England.
Indain press began campahin by writing editorials.
British Indian Association 1851, an organization of landlords supported ryots, resulted in the Indigo commission 1860.
It asked Ryot to fulfil present contracts but was free to not sign contracts in the future.
Therefore by 1863 Indigo cultivation sifted from Bengal to Bihar in form of the Tinkathia system.
Pabna Agrarian league, 1873:
There Grievance was high land and illegal Abwabs, and Zamindars not respecting occupancy rights under the rent act 1859.
The action was peasants organized themself into leagues and pooled money to fight in courts, Naya Mian replicated the movements in other districts.
The result was the Bengal tenancy act which gave more protection to tenants regarding occupancy rights.
The educated middle class got divided as it was not foreigners who were under attack but Indian Zamindars.
Deccan riots 1875, Maharashtra:
During the US civil war, there was an increase in cotton prices but later the price fell.
The Grievance was that oppression by Moneylenders via high-interest rates on loans, loss of lands due to indebtedness, high land revenue in Ryotwari, and loss of land in a government auction.
The action was Poona Sarvajanik Sabha 1870 of middle class collected 17,000 signatures on the power of attorney to represent ryot in front of the British government.
Therefore government agreed that confiscation of land on non-payment of land would be the last resort of the government for recovering land revenue.
However, moneylenders now refused loans therefore ryots were unable to pay land revenue and a violent revolt began in 1875.
Life of moneylenders was not attacked but only debt bonds were burned, therefore ryot was aware of the tool of oppression.
The result was the Deccan agriculturist relief act, of 1879, which regulated interest rates and gave protection against the loss of lands due to indebtedness.

The topic of the next class: Pre-INC organizations.

Modern Indian History Class 25

The emergence of the Indian National Movement (INM) until the formation of INC? (5:02 PM):

Mention various revolts before INC.
Some organizations before INC.
Evolution of INM:
Indian National Movement was a product of the negativities of British rule.
Gradual progress from regional to national organizations and from moderates to extremists to the revolutionary phase.
Nationalism at the organized level at the top, as against peasant struggle on the ground emerged in the second half of the 19th century.
The first contribution to modern politics and modern nationalism came from educated zamindars.
British Indian Association 1851 (BRIA 1851) - in Bengal:
The first major voluntary organization in India comprised educated zamindars.
Though it represented zamindar interests, it was an all-Indian organization.
It was different from Dwarkanath Tagor's Landholder Society 1838, which had many non-official Anglo-Indians/British.
Bombay Association1852 and Madras Native Association 1852 had similar features.
The objectives of these organizations were to send petitions to the British Parliament, which was drafting the Charter Act of 1853.
They worked to raise legitimate demands of Indians and not just of landlords, thus forming a fraternity of nationalism.
The issue with these organizations was that they would send three separate petitions to London and not just a single petition. Thus, there was a lack of coordination among these organizations.
The demand of these organizations:
Complained about expenses and incompetent administration, high taxation, neglect of education and public works, and monopoly in salt and opium production/trade (i.e. opening these sectors to Indians).
Therefore they didn't oppose British rule (Angrezo Bharat Choro) but highlighted that Indians are not benefited from British rule.
These conservatives were the first contributor to modern nationalism.
They failed to achieve their objectives because the British assumed unconditional loyalty of the landed and educated class as they were major beneficiaries of British rule.
However, post-1857 revolt, leadership was provided by the landed class and Indian princes. Instead of their support, the British nominated them into councils set up under the Indian Councils Act 1861 (ICA -1861)

General factors behind the rise of INM: (05:45 PM)

The rapid spread of western education post-1857:
Inspired by the ideas of modern nationalism, the educated middle class took leadership of the Indian national movement
British wanted to create Brown Sahebs, however, this middle-class intelligentsia used education to develop a criticism of British rule. It gained momentum, especially when the educated middle class realized that the British had no intention of sharing power with Indians.
However uneven growth of western education led to the uneven growth of INM.
For example, since education was not free and the British adopted the downward filtration theory, the upper caste benefited more than the lower caste.
Bombay, Madras, and Bengal benefitted more than other regions.
Within Presidencies, the Presidency town benefitted more than other areas.
The middle class benefited more than the peasantry.
Benefits were cornered by communities like Marathi, Tamilians, Bengalis, and Hindus as compared to other communities like Gujarati, Telugu, Malayali, Odiya, Assamese, and Muslims.
The result was the growth of political activities in more educated areas and groups.
The rapid development of the press:
The educated middle class used the press as a tool to raise the demand for Indians and spread nationalistic ideas.
For example- by 1875 there were roughly 400 Indian newspapers in English and vernacular with a readership of more than 1.5 lakhs.
As a result, the press increased political consciousness, boosted inter-regional awareness and fraternity
Colonial institutions:
Legislative councils helped the growth of INM as educated Indians campaigned for Council reforms. Post-1892 moderates used Councils for demanding the rights of Indians.
Growth of railways and telegraph networks:
It led to greater interconnectedness.
This allowed greater interaction with regional leaders.
Greater inter-regional awareness among leaders of INM led to the development of pan-India leaders.

Negatives of British rule contributed to the rise of INM: (6:05 PM)

Racial tensions led to opposition to British rule:
Lex-Loci Act was passed despite huge opposition by Hindus.
Black Acts 1850 brought British-born subjects of the Presidency town, under the criminal jurisdiction of the Ordinary Court, with Indians as judges (1833 - Judiciary opened to Indians). The act was put on hold due to high opposition by Anglo-Indians. Therefore, conflict increased the psychological distance between the two races.
Rise of cultural nationalism in response to increased racism and criticism of Indian civilization post-1857.
Taxation without representation (TWR):
No tax without representation is the core principle of democracy.
Income Tax (1860, 1868) - In the 1860s and 70s India witnessed famine in its different parts, despite this Income Tax was introduced in 1860. This led to massive protests in the press, as a result, it was withdrawn, but reintroduced in 1868. Therefore, taxation without representation became a grievance of educated Indians.
Higher expenditure on home charges and the army combined with the increase in taxes, while expenditure in higher education decreased in the 1870s.
Due to increased agitation by educated Indians, the press supported by the Anglo-Indians began propaganda that educated Indians are becoming seditious. Therefore, in 1870 government decreased expenditure on higher education in Bengal.
Administration of Lyton (1876-80):
Decreased the age limit for civil services examination was from 21 to 19 years in 1876, while demand for simultaneous exams in India was neglected. Therefore he distrusted Indians and did not want their representation in senior positions.
Statutory Civil Services Act, 1878: Lyton created statutory civil service to operationalize provisions of an 1870 law by the British Parliament that wanted more Indians in civil services.
Lytton however insured that only loyalists were nominated to statutory civil services, in which entry was through a nomination and not examination. Thus, from 1877-80, a huge press campaign was started for the Indianisation of civil services by western educated Indians.
Imperial or Delhi Durbar (1877): Here Queen Victoria got coronated with the title of Kaisar-i-Hind or Empress of India. Therefore, huge expenditures were incurred while the subcontinent witnessed frequent famines. (Can be used in no taxation without representation as expenditure of taxes without the consent of people)
Vernacular Press Act, 1878: To curb freedom of the press as the vernacular press was becoming increasingly critical of the British.
Printers and publishers of the vernacular press have to deposit money as an advance that could be forfeited by the government if they published any objectionable content (i.e. anti-British). This led to huge agitation in the press by educated Indians. Even British parliamentarian Gladstone (a liberal) criticized the act.
Arms Act, 1878: Indians required a license to own arms, while Europeans and Eurasians did not therefore, racism was in operation. B.C. Pal started agitation against the Arms Act of 1878.
The expensive second Afghan War (1878-80), also known as Lyton's Afghan adventure as it was avoidable. It was fought due to fear of increasing Russian influence in Afghanistan, and the resultant treaty with Russia after the war led to the modern borders of Afghanistan.
It was unnecessary war expenditure at a time of famines.
In 1880, Liberal Party came to power in Britain. Therefore Lyton was replaced with a liberal Ripon (1880-1884)

A positive regime of Ripon (1880-1884): (7:18 PM)

Repealed Vernacular Press Act, 1878 in 1882.
Amended Arms Act 1878 to remove racially discriminatory provisions. Therefore, now all required licenses to own arms.
Increased age limit for civil service examinations from 19 to 21 years.
Local Self-Government Resolution (LSGR) 1882:
There existed municipalities in urban towns and committees for different works like sanitation, road construction, education, etc. in rural areas. However, they were under official control.
Rippon strengthened urban and rural local bodies via LSGR, 1882. By 1884, the effect was visible in the whole of British India.
Its purpose was to train Indians in self-government and not efficiency in administration.
Now, in rural areas, District Boards and Taluk Boards were set up across the whole of British India, and their members were elected by rent payers and taxpayers instead of a nomination.
In urban towns, the powers of municipalities increased.
A minimum of two-thirds were elected members and a maximum of one-third were nominated members and the chairman was a non-official member.
Subjects of health, education, roads, communication, etc. were given to local bodies, which were now to be autonomous in day-to-day functioning.
However, the government could inspect and dissolve a local body.
Hunter Education Commission (1882-1883):
It recommended the transfer of the education subject to municipalities and District Boards.
Now focus to be on mass western education in vernacular, with a focus on female education.
Divide secondary education into literary and vocational (skill development) branches.
Illbert Bill Controversy (1883-84):
It was named after C.P. Illbert, who was a law member of Ripon's council.
The bill gave jurisdiction to Indian judges over British-born subjects in mofussil (rural) areas, as they already had in presidency towns.
Strongly opposed by the Anglo-Indians and British officials. e.g. Lt. Governor of Bengal stated that the bill ignores racial differences.
The bill had to be amended and compromises were made, to allow trial by mixed jury where British-born subjects were involved.
The controversy was a turning point for educated Indians, as any doubt of the subordination of Indians to the British was removed.
It was an important benchmark in the growth of political activities, due to massive press propaganda.
The proposal for simultaneous civil services examination in India failed. Therefore, all positive reforms of Ripon were strongly opposed by the Britishers in India.

Regional Organisations of the middle class: (7:57 PM)

They were set up for representing the interests of Indians
Indian Association 1876 by Surendranath Banerjee in Bengal
Poona Sarvajanik Sabha, 1870 -MG Ranade, KT Telang, Ferozshah Mehta
Madras Mahajan Sabha 1884 - S Ramaswami Mudaliar and P Anandacharlu
Lahore Indian Association 1878 in Punjab by Ajit Singh and Lala Lajpat Rai
They gradually replaced the domination of conservatives i.e. organizations of the landed class.
Therefore, in the 1870s there was the rise of moderates and the middle class properly took up leadership of INM at an organized level.

The topic of the next class: Foundation of Indian National Congress

Modern Indian History Class 26

Formation of Indian National Congress(INC) (5:01 PM)

Safety Valve Theory(SVT) held that AO Hume and Dufferin(1884-1888) set up INC with moderates, to diffuse tensions. Therefore, preventing 1857 like revolt.
The origin of SVT traces back to the biography of AO Hume, by Wedderburn
Why SVT Falls:
1. seven volumes of secret reports from Sadhus to Hume were never found.
Also, Dufferin never took Hume seriously. In addition to that, he hated moderates and didn't consider them mass leaders.
He didn't like INC formation, as he feared the Irish-like Home Rule Movement by INC.
2. We were on the path to setting up an India Organization- Pre-INC political activities were on the rise, plus even British Indian Association, 1851 tried opening branches in Bombay and Madras.
Also, the Native Press Association set up with Surendranath Banerjee(SNB) as President in 1877 Imperial Durbar, was All India Organization, which decided to meet annually
Plus SNB's Indian Association 1876, held a national conference in 1883 in Calcutta, another to be held in 1885
National Fund was set up in 1885 for an election campaign in favour of liberal candidates, fighting British parliamentary elections.
3. Even if Hume and Dufferin wanted to use the INC as a safety valve, moderates used Hume as a lightning conductor.
As purely an All India and all India organization, won't have been allowed by the British.
Also, Hume overcame differences among regional leaders.
4. In the Biography, Wedderburn wrote so, because he wanted Hume to be viewed as Patriot in Britain. Also, Hume wanted strong opposition in India, as he was a liberal

Moderates (5:47 PM)

Ideology of Moderates
First, the twenty years of INC was the moderate phase of the Indian National Movement
Moderates believed in constitutionalism(* that is a strong and good state, that provides a mechanism for grievance redressal).
They knew that British rule was exploitative but believed it can modernize India if the British pressurized.
They believed in the providence (*goodness) of British Rule.
Moderates didn't believe that Indians were ready for self-rule.
Therefore, their goal was limited self-government to Indians, within the British empire. They never even thought about full independence.
They were secular and believed in western capitalism.
They believed western capitalism will modernize India, and believed in national unity.

Swaraj(5:55 PM)

the First concept of swaraj indicates the control of Indians over the state. This includes Limited self-government and self-government
Limited self-government means a partnership between Indians and Britishers over control of the State
Limited self-government was the goal of moderates. Self-government within the British was the goal of extremists.
Poorna Swaraj was the goal of young INC leaders in the 1920s, like Bose, Nehru, Patel, etc.
Therefore, extremists had faith in Indians, while moderates didn't believe that Indians were ready for self-rule.
This was endorsed as many believed that Indians were not ready to rule India.
Self-government further can mean either Self-government within the British Government and Full self-government (Poorna Swaraj)
Self-government within the British Government means Dominion Status.
Dominion Status means maximum control that can be given without the colony leaving the country.
Dominion status is similar to the Subsidiary alliance with the British. Defence, Foreign affairs, and communication with the British rest with the Indians.
the Second concept of swaraj indicates the rule of each Indian, which means a stateless society
Gandhiji wanted enlightened anarchism. He wanted not law but religion as a source of morality.
He wanted a positive role of religion, in governance.

Indian Council Act, 1861(6:43PM)

Moderate demand was to amend the Indian Council Act, of 1861, (to give limited self-government)
Reason for ICA, 1861
Post-1857 British wanted the support of Indian Rajas and Zamindars
Provisions
Viceroy's council converted into ILC- Imperial Legislative council and VEC- Viceroy's Executive Council/Imperial Executive Council
The separate legislature and Executive bodies, both were under Viceroy, therefore was no Separation of power at the level of the Viceroy
PLC-Provincial Legislative Councils and Governor's Executive Council in Provinces
Therefore, ILC and PLC were established by the Indian council act, of 1861
Viceroy could Nominate 6-12 law members to ILC of which, at least half must be non-officials.
Therefore, First time Indians could be included in law-making.
Indian Council act, therefore introduced a grain of popular(Indian) elements. It was the first attempt at the representative character of governance as some Indians first time could be nominated to the legislative branch of the state.
In 1862, three Indians were nominated to ILC- Maharaja of Patiala, Raja of Benaras, and Sir Dinkar Rao (All Elites).
Until 1892, mostly Zamindar and money lenders from British Indian Association were nominated along with British businessmen
overall, 45 Indians were nominated from 1861-92.
No discussion by ILC without prior approval of the viceroy
No discussion of the action of the administration
Prior approval of the viceroy for the introduction of bills.
Viceroy had veto powers over bills.
Therefore ILC of the Indian Council Act, of 1861 was not a parliament( No control over the executive).
(Later link powers of Duma after October manifesto, 1905, after Russian Revolution 1905)
Executive:
1. Portfolio system of 1859, legally recognized i.e. Allocation of departments to members/ministers of VEC.
The final decision over that department to be of this minister
2. Power of Lawmaking by Ordinance through viceroy in special circumstances (Life of six months).
The ordinance is the lawmaking power given to the executive in case of urgency when the legislature is not in session.
3. Viceroy got the power to create new provinces and appoint Lieutenant Governor(LG).
ICA 1861 began decentralization between the centre and provinces
Centralization began with Regulating Act of 1773, plus peaked in 1833.
ICA, 1861 restored legislative powers of Bombay and Madras, and other provinces
It ensured the movement of power from the Viceroy to the Governor. The journey of Federalism (* Federalism means more power to states) began.
The new legislative council was proposed in Bengal, North-west frontier Province(NFP), and Punjab.
(After the charter act 1853, Dalhousie created the post of LG of Bengal to decrease his burden as ruler of British India as well as Bengal)
Power to viceroy to frame rules and orders for the conduct of business in all councils (ILC and PLCs)
In provinces, provisions similar to ILC, and non-official members in PLC's to be appointed by Viceroy only
Prior approval of the viceroy is needed for the introduction of some bills in PLCs
PLCs did not have separate budget-making powers

Legislatures (7:01 PM)

It can consist of officials and non-officials.
Non-official members can be either nominated or elected.
Nonofficial members can be Indians or Britishers.
Elected members can be directly or indirectly elected.

Demands of Moderates (7:33 PM)

Increased size of ILC and PLC
Bring the elected majority (and not the direct majority)
Greater powers to ILC and PLCs
Indianization of services
Decrease military expenditure.
Also share expenditure between India and Britain, as the army was used not just for the protection of India, but also the rest of the British empire.
Have a volunteer army i.e. allow all Indians to apply and join
Trial by jury
Remove Arms Act 1878
Decrease land revenue
Extend permanent settlement 1793 to areas outside Bengal as in it, Land revenue cannot be increased.
End salt tax( *Link Civil Disobedience Movement of Mahatma Gandhi)
End exploitation of indentured labourers (*contractual labourers of Assam tea garden)(* link Mahatma Gandhi in South Africa)
Abolish India council ( so that the Secretary of State for India can function freely)
Result
None of the demands of the Moderates was met.
Weaknesses of Moderates(7:49 PM)
1. Uneven representation and total exclusion of non-elites, therefore their claim of representing India was weak.
INC was mainly dominated by upper castes, Hindus, middle class, men, Bengalis, Marathi, and Tamilians. Therefore, not truly representative
2. Due to their social background, they didn't take up anti-zamindar issues and were pro-capitalist, this hurt their support base
3. They had a limited goal of limited self-government. Therefore, didn't want the end of British Rule, as they believed that British rule will modernize India.
4. They didn't believe that Indians are ready for self-government (because of the low spread of western education)
5. Even their ultimate long-term goal was dominion status i.e. self-government on the lines of Canada and Australia, and full British citizenship
6. Had moderate methods of sending petitions, passing resolutions, writing articles, and making speeches and council work, that didn't create enough pressure on Britishers
7. They developed a rich culture of debate but no focus on mass struggle. That is no focus on involving the common man.
8. In 1886 under Dadabhai Naoroji, INC decided to not take up social issues like casteism, communalism, or peasant and working-class interest.
They thought it might hurt unity among Indians.
9. They wanted gradual reforms, not radical reforms.
10. They were part-time politicians and most of them had lucrative legal practices and other professions
11. INC was not a party but a three-day annual function without any organizational structure at the provincial and local levels
Overall they had mild goals and mild methods and extremist criticized their methods as a policy of Mendicancy/ begging.
Their constitutional agitation didn't create any pressure, and no demand of theirs was met.

The topic of the Next class: Positives of the Moderates

Modern history notes

Post a Comment

0 Comments

Economics_RS Class 03

Search This Blog

Contact Form

Report Abuse

UPSC Lectures & Notes

Instagram

Subscribe Us

Popular Posts

International Relations Class 02

International Relations Class 04

Economics_RS Class 02

Recent Posts

Categories

Tags

Recent on Education

Modern history notes

You may like these posts

Post a Comment

0 Comments

Economics_RS Class 03

Search This Blog

Contact Form

Report Abuse

UPSC Lectures & Notes

Instagram

Social Plugin

Subscribe Us

Popular Posts

International Relations Class 02

International Relations Class 04

Economics_RS Class 02

Recent Posts

Categories

Tags

Recent on Education