Sir Charles Napier said, "We have no right to seize Sind, yet we shall do so, and a very advantageous, useful, humane piece of rascality it will be.''

Demand of the Question:

There are two aspects in the question- first why British have no right to seize Sind? and other why British seize Sind? Major stress should be to highlight the advantages associated with annexation of Sind for the British. 

Introduction:

Annexation of the territory of an eternal friend ( Treaty of eternal friendship,1809 ), commercially beneficial friend ( Commercial Treaty of 1832 ) and partner in Anglo-afghan war , although reluctant, was indeed an immoral act, as admitted by British Resident at Sind- Sir Charles Napier himself, But it was driven by broader North-west frontier policy of British as well as an opportunity to regain the prestige after Afghan debacle.

Body:

Why no right to seize Sind?

● Sind was in ‘eternal friendship’ with British since the treaty of 1809. They have provided safe passage to british merchants and goods through the Commercial Treaty of 1832 . So annexation of Sind was an immoral act as you conquered the friend.

● As Sind had abided by all the treaties they had signed with English East India Company. Even to its reluctance they supplied the army and money in support of British during Afghan war.

● It was the manufactured charges by Charles Napier against the amirs which he used as a pretext to seize Sind.

Although the Commercial Treaty of 1832 provided free passage to British merchants and goods but the increasing disturbances in Sind was a threat to the commercial benefits of British, which resulted in complete annexation of Sind in 1843.

4. Case of Victorian Imperialism

The British policy of territorial expansion came to its peak after queen victoria sat at throne in 1837 and Seize of Sind should be seen as a part of this bigger scheme which culminated with Doctrine of Lapse under Lord Dalhousie and resulting ‘First war of Indian Independence’ in 1857.

Conclusion:

Thus the British annexation of Sind in 1843 should be seen as a result of change in both internal and external situation. The external factors like Russophobia and Victorian Imperialism and the internal factors like Afghan debacle forced the direct control over Sind and the internal instability provided the opportunity.

Causes of Annexation Of Sind

 View 1: For the safety and integrity of Anglo-Indian Empire or Frontier

In the background of Russo-phobia and failure in Afghan adventure the British found Sind as an important part of their north-west frontier policy. This is visible in the communications between Governor General Auckland and the British Residents at Sind- Pottinger.

● The British were gradually increasing their control over Sind against the threat from north-west. For example the fear of French design forced Lord Minto to sign a treaty of ‘perpetual friendship’ with Sind in 1809 which eliminated the chances of French alliance with Sind.

● The British kept eliminating the possibility of European and American alliances with Sind and through the forced Treaty of 1839 they gained comprehensive control over Sind. The British forces were stationed at Bukkar and Sikarpur with Amir's money. They annexed Karachi in 1839 itself and used both the money and auxiliary force of Sind against the Afghans.

● After the failure of Afghan adventure, Sind became even more crucial in British scheme of north-west frontier security as can be seen in Lord Ellenborough letter to the Duke of Wellington in March, 1843. On one hand it increased Russian influence in Afghan and on the other it intensified the fear of Russo-Persian attack on India, thus a strong British presence in Sind was required which forced the complete annexation of Sind in 1843.

View 2: Fight to regain Prestige

● It was a fight to regain Prestige which the British lost after their debacle in Afghan war. The revolts against British rule in different parts of India like that in Bundelkhand and Madras soon after Afghan war was a sign of breaking up of the myth of British invincibility and her prestige.

● Thus to re-establish her superiority and prestige in the minds of native people they need to win a war, as argued by historian Ronald Hyam . Under this background Lord Ellenborough sanctioned the Annexation of Sind.

View 3: Commercial and navigational importance of Indus

● Historians like V.A. Smith has argued that the commercial and maritime importance of the Indus River , more so at the time of Afghan hostility, was an important cause for increasing control of British in Sind. With control on river Indus the British got a direct commercial way to Central Asia.

● The signing of a Commercial Treaty of 1832 between Sind and the British Company shows the commercial angle of Anglo-Sind relations. The treaty clause, like free passage of British merchants and travellers, does support this view.

View 4: The Conquest of Sind was morally and politically the sequel of the Afghan war- P.E. Roberts

Charles Napier believed that the Sindian War was not an isolated vent but “the tail of the Afghan storm”.

Points in support:

1. Englishmen believed that Afghan war made it expedient, although unjust, to coerce the Amirs of Sind. They wanted to use the weakness and richness of the Amirs in Afghan war.

● They were coerced to provide finances for Afghan adventure through the Treaty of 1839.

● The Treaty of 1839 forced the Amirs to provide the Auxiliary force against Afghans.

● Sind provided the safe passage for the troops and supplies of war which demanded greater control of British over Sind.

2. It was a fight to regain Prestige which the British lost after their debacle in Afghan war. The revolts against British rule in different parts of India like that in Bundelkhand and Madras soon after Afghan war was a sign of disbelief in British invincibility and her prestige and thus to re-establish her superiority and prestige in the minds of native people they need to win a war. Under this background Lord Ellenborough sanctioned the Annexation of Sind.

3. The strategic value of Sind made her an important province. The British, who were preoccupied with the Russo-Phobia , needed a stable frontier which supported them against any possible Russo-Persian design in India. After the defeat by Afghans and a stronger Punjab army, Sind was seen as an easy target to pursue the English design of the north-west Frontier. Also the failure of Afghan adventure put the British under the necessity of greater vigilance about the frontier problem as on one hand it increased Russian influence in Afghanistan and on the other intensified the fear of Russo-Persian attack on India, thus a strong British presence in Sind was required which forced the complete annexation of Sind in 1843.

Rise of extremists, Radical revolutionaries, Left wing extremism

 1. Discuss the nature, methods and activities of the Terrorist Revolutionary Movement and assess its place in India’s Freedom Struggle. [1979, 60m]

2. Examine the causes of the rise and progress of revolutionary movements in India from 1905 to 1931. [2003, 60m]

3. Describe the changing nature of revolutionary activities in India between 1905 - 1946. [2008, 60m]

4. “The very idea of the bomb and the secret society, and of propaganda through action and sacrifice were import from the West.” Critically examine. [2015, 10m]

5. Trace the origin of the Ghadar movement and discuss its impact on the revolutionaries in India. [2017, 20m]

The Left; The Left within the Congress: Jawaharlal Nehru, Subhas Chandra Bose, the Congress Socialist Party; the Communist Party of India, other left parties.

1. Assess the role of the Left Wing within the Indian National Congress between 1920 and 1947. [1981, 60m]

2. Account for the rise and growth of Left-wing within the Congress. Did Jawaharlal Nehru believe in a socialistic approach to Indian and world problems and if so why? [1986, 60m]

3. ‘The National Movement has shown concern for problems other than the constitutional one.’ Discuss the factors that helped the rise of a left wing in the Indian National Congress. [1990, 60m]

4. Account for the rise and growth of leftism in the Congress movement. What impact did it have on contemporary Indian politics? [1997, 60m]

5. Discuss the nature of the leadership and programme of the Congress Socialist party. [2002, 60m])

6. “The ideology of Subhash Chandra Bose was a combination of nationalism, fascism and communism.” Comment. [2002, 20m]

7. Account for the emergence of the left-wing within the congress. How far did it influence the programme and policy of the congress? [2006, 60m]

8. The emergence of left-wing group in the congress redicalized its social economic agenda." Critically evaluate. [2011, 20m]

9. A powerful left-wing group developed in India in the late 1920s and 1930s, contributing to the radicalization of national movement.” Critically Examine. [2015, 10m]

10. Underline the growth of various forms of Socialist ideologies in the Indian National Movement between World War I and II. [2018, 20 Marks]

11. Assess the role of Subas Chandra Bose in India's struggle for independence.

OPSC

1. Examine the causes of the rise and progress of revolutionary movements in India from 1905 to 1931.(60)

2. Account for the rise and growth of leftism in the Congress movement. (40)

3. How would explain the growth of the militant nationalism in the beginning of the 20th century ? In what way did the militant nationalists differ from the moderates.

4. Trace the growth of militant nationalism in the freedom struggle of India between 1906 and 1920.

Formation and Evolution of INC

 1. Discuss ‘the safety valve’ theory. Does it satisfactorily explain the foundation of the Indian National Congress? [60m]

2. To what extent was the emergence of the Congress in 1885 the culmination of a process of political awakening that had its beginning in the 1870s? [60m]

3. “The ‘safety-valve thesis’ does not adequately explain the birth of the Indian National Congress in 1885.” Critically examine.

4. Describe briefly the ideals and programme of the Indian National Congress between 1885 and 1905 and assess official response to it. [1980, 60m]

5. Trace the factors which led to a split in the Indian national Congress in 1907. What was its impact on the course of the nationalist movement? [2003, 60m]

6. Analyze the social composition of the early Congress leadership. [30m]

7. “Politics remained for the bulk of the Moderates very much a part-time affair. The Congress was not a political party, but an annual three-day show…” Elucidate. [20m]

8. Review the aims of the moderates in the Congress. Do you believe because of their approach Extremism appeared at the national level.  [60m]

Drain Theory PYQs

 

UPSC

1. Trace the course and explain the consequences of the drain of wealth from Bengal in the eighteenth century. [60m]

2. “Our system acts very much like a sponge, drawing up all the good things from the banks of the Ganges, and squeezing them down on the banks of the Thames.” Comment. [20m]

3. Write a critique on the impact of the Drain Theory of Dadabhai Nauroji in the growth of economic nationalism. [60m]

4. "The need for a unilateral transfer of funds to Britain was constant factor and, in fact, progressively increased over time." Critically evaluate. [20m]

5.How far was the drain theory a focal point of nationalist critique of colonialism? [20 Marks]

OPSC

1. Critically analyze the growth of economic nationalism in India in the light of the Drain-Theory. [60 marks]

2. Examine the growth of economic nationalism in India in the light of the drain theory.

3. The halcyon days of India are over; she has been drained of large portion of her wealth she once possessed and her energies have been cramped by a sordid system of misrule to which the interests of the millions have been sacrificed for the benefits of few.

industrial and agricultural policy of the government of india between 1858 and 1914

Over the years in the late eighteenth and the early twentieth centuries the colonial state had been perfecting its system of surplus extraction from the agricultural economy of India. India had to provide a market for Britain's manufactured goods, and serve as a source of agricultural raw materials and served as a major market for British industries, like cotton, iron and steel, railways, machinery etc.

Agricultural Policy :

o Some of the recent historical writings point out that the fact still remains that India was not transformed into a full-fledged capitalist economy. As in the case of agrarian economy, so also in other sectors, British policies failed to foster growth. And this was due to the colonial nature of those policies, i.e., the policy of gearing up the colonial economy to the needs of the economy of the mother country.

o There was, first of all, limited colonial initiative to develop agricultural production, except the construction of some irrigation canals in parts of northern, north-eastern and south-western India, i.e., in non-Permanent Settlement areas where there was scope for enhancing land-revenue rates.

▪ It is possible to argue that between 1900 and 1939, the area under irrigation almost doubled; but that was only in absolute terms. In relative terms, in 1947 when the British empire ended its long career in India, only a quarter of the total cropped area was under public irrigation system.

▪ The real reason was that public investment in this sector was guided only by the profitability factor and extreme contingencies, such as prevention of famines.

▪ Region where irrigation facilities developed, it favoured only the more prosperous among the peasantry, as canal rates were very high.

• In Punjab, the canal colonies became the model of commercial agriculture in Asia, but the new prosperity that accrued even after paying high water rates, was shared only by limited social groups, such as a few agricultural castes and some medium and large-sized landlords.

▪ The aggregate agricultural yields were largely static in colonial India, and between 1920 and 1947, especially the production of food crops lagged far behind the rate of population growth.

• Near-famine conditions were therefore not rarities in India during the British period and in 1943 two to three million people perished in a major famine in Bengal

o Commercialisation of agriculture, which favours differentiation within the peasantry, capital accumulation and production for the market, is considered to be a sign of progress towards capitalist agriculture.

▪ In the Indian case, however, the initiative often did not come from within the peasant society and the benefits did not accrue to them either. In the case of indigo in eastern India, planters (had no right to buy land until 1829) had to persuade, and later force, the local peasants to accept advances to produce indigo in their lands

▪ As for other crops, there is a persistent view that the peasants were "forced" to cultivate cash crops because of high revenue demand, the necessity to pay revenue and rent in cash and above all for debt servicing.

▪ It was only the rich peasants who could go for cash crops and they too remained immensely vulnerable to the fluctuations in the market.

• In western India, for example, cotton cultivation grew in response to the cotton boom in the 1860s caused by the American Civil War. It created a pocket of prosperity in the Deccan cotton belt, which disappeared very soon after the end of the war and was followed by a famine and agrarian riots in the 1870s.

• Jute cultivation in eastern India developed as the peasants failed to meet the subsistence necessities and hoped to earn more by cultivating the "golden crop". So an economic motive was certainly there in peasants' decision to shift to jute cultivation. But as Sugata Bose has shown, the primary producers could hardly reap the benefit of the boom in jute market between 1906 and 1913, as "jute manufacturers and exporters [majority of whom were British] were able to exercise their monopsony power as purchasers of raw jute", leaving the jute growers no space to bargain for prices.

o The jute economy crashed in the 1930s and was followed by a devastating famine in Bengal in 1943. It is difficult to establish a direct connection between commercialisation and famines, even though cash crops in some areas might have driven out foodgrains from the better quality land, with consequent impact on output.

o When colonial rule came to an end, food crops were still being grown in 80 per cent of the cropped acreage. But on the whole, as noted earlier, the aggregate production of food crops lagged behind population growth.

Industrial Policy

o Until World War One, there was no import duty, which could possibly offer any sort of protection to any of the Indian industries .

o India became field for British capital investments in railways and agency houses.

o Much of the foreign loans and investments were for the development of infrastructure, for integrating internal markets and, therefore, for the modernisation of the Indian economy itself.

Railways are considered to be another contribution of British rule towards the development of modem economic infrastructure.But its main purpose was to serve the interests of the empire, rather than the needs of the lndian economy.

• Empire and deindustrialisation:

▪ Following the industrial revolution, not only did this export demand gradually evaporate, but colonial rule opened the Indian markets for British manufactured goods and led to "deindustrialisation" or destruction of indigenous handicraft industries, reducing the number of people dependent on secondary industries.

There was rising industrial income because of increasing per worker productivity in the crafts achieved through technological specialisation and industrial reorganisation.

The shift from local to long distance trade market helped artisanal industry, but did not lead to successful industrialisation, with the necessary structural changes and economic development.

• One of the reasons behind this lack of overall economic development was that the colonial state in the nineteenth century was far from just a "night watchman",

Since 1813 when Indian trade was freed from the monopoly of the East India Company, India came to be considered as a lucrative field for British private capital investment, chiefly in railways, jute industry, tea plantation and mining.

o Indian money market was dominated by the European banking houses. One major reason why the Indian entrepreneurs failed and their European counterparts thrived was the latter's greater access to and command over capital, facilitated by their connections with the banks and agency houses, while the Indians had to depend on their kins, families and castemen.

British economic interests in India operated through the Chambers of Commerce and the Managing Agency Houses, which influenced government policies and eliminated indigenous competition.

dominating jute industry, coal mining and tea plantations, controlling 75 percent of the industrial capital in India and almost half of the total industrial employment. So whatever industrialisation that did occur was mostly, though not exclusively, through British capital, with the profits being regularly repatriated. And the major factors that favoured this development were the discriminatory official policies.

▪ Tea industry remained dominated by British capital until the 1950s; so was coal mining in eastern India.

• Successes of the Indian Industrialist:

o The development of jute industry in Bengal:

▪ jute as a cheap substitute for flax was developed in the early nineteenth century and Bengal remained the chief supplier of raw jute for the industries in Dundee. In 1855 the first jute mill was started in Bengal, and then closeness to sources of raw materials and cheap labour gave it a competitive edge over the Scottish industry.

▪ The World War One and the wartime demand hike gave the industry a real push. The amount of paid up capital in jute industry increased from 79.3 million in 1914-15 to 106.4 million in 1918-19, to 179.4 million in 1922-23. Bulk of the capital invested was British capital, organised through the Indian Jute Mills Association (IJMA), which controlled output in order to maintain high prices. The profitability of the industry continued until the Great Depression.

▪ However, this dominance of expatriate capital notwithstanding, from the 1920s some Calcutta-based Marwaris, who had made

money as traders and shroffs, began to intrude into this exclusive sphere and started investing in jute industry. First, through buying stocks and lending money, many of the Marwaris got themselves elected to the boards of the European managing agencies. And then, people like G.D. Birla and Swarupchand Hukumchand set up their own mills in 1922. This marked the beginning of Indian jute mills around Calcutta.

▪ This Marwari stranglehold was gradually extended to other sectors, like coal mines, sugar mills and paper industry. Between 1942 and 1945, they began to take over some of the European companies.

o The real success of the Indian industrialists, however, came in the cotton industry of western India.

▪ Until the beginning of World War One imported textiles dominated Indian markets. This import considerably declined during the war-more than halved between 1913-14 and 1917-18-

• partly because of the transport dislocations caused by the war and partly due to 7 .5 per cent import duty on cotton textiles imposed in 1917.

• There was the military demand and the call for 'Swadeshi', proposing a boycott of foreign goods and the use of their indigenous alternatives.

▪ Cotton industry existed in India before World War One, and along with the European managing agencies, certain traditional trading communities like the Gujarati banias, Parsis, Bohras and Bhatias, who made money through export trade with China, had maintained their presence in this sector.

▪ The industry remained dependent on foreign collaboration for imported machinery, chemicals and technological expertise.

o Iron and steel industry, under the leadership of Tata Iron and Steel Company (flSCO), began at the turn of the century under direct government patronage.

▪ Because, here the monopoly of the Birmingham steel industry had already been broken by continental steel, except in matters of government and railway orders.

• Though government policies and the stranglehold of British capital inhibited Indian enterprise in certain sectors, recent researches show that below the westernised enclave and above the subsistence economy of the peasants, there was an intermediate level— the bazaar— where Indian businessmen and bankers continued to operate. 

o Some of these indigenous firms took advantage of the new opportunities of the empire, such as the railways and telegraph, and ran sophisticated and fairly integrated business networks that covered the whole of the subcontinent. These firms later expanded overseas to China, Burma, Straits Settlement, Middle East and East Africa. It was these operations which generated indigenous capital, which was later invested in industries after World War One. India's underdevelopment was therefore not due to any lack of entrepreneurial skills.

Explain why Akbar is regarded as the greatest muslim ruler of India

Undoubtedly Akbar was the only ruler among the rulers of medieval India who attempted to foster the national feeling in India.

He did succeed to some extent. However subsequent Mughal rulers failed to catch his spirit.

The majority of historians regard Akbar as a great emperor.

Akbar (1542-1605) - Familypedia

K.T. Shah writes, “Akbar was the greatest of the Mughals and perhaps the greatest of all Indian rulers for a thousand years, if not ever since the days of the mighty Mauryas. But without detracting in the least from the genius of the man of the inheritance of his birth, it may yet be said that Akbar was so great, because he was so thoroughly Indianised.”

Akbar’s claim to be a ‘national king’ is supported on the following basis:

1. Bringing entire India under rule of one monarch.

2. Unified system of administration.

3. Unified system of revenue administration.

4. Unified taxation policy.

5. Rajput policy of reconciliation.

6. Religious policy of synthesis and toleration.

7. Making Persian as court language.

8. Generous help in the growth of literature in all languages.

9. Developing a uniform Indian style of fine arts by bringing about synthesis of different styles.

10. Cultural harmony relating to customs and manners.

11. Welfare of his subjects belonging to different communities.

Edwardes and Gerrett wrote:

“Akbar has proved his worth in different fields of action. He was an intrepid soldier, a great general, a wise administrator, a benevolent ruler, and a sound judge of character. He was a born leader of men and can rightly claim to be one of the mightiest sovereigns known to history …During a reign of nearly fifty years, he built up a powerful Empire which could vie with the strongest and established a dynasty whose hold over India was not contested by any rival for about a century. His reign witnessed the final transformation of the Mughuls from merely military invaders into a permanent Indian dynasty.”

1. Considering India as Motherland:

Most of the Sultan rulers of India considered themselves as the representative of Caliph of Baghdad. Babur had also willed to be buried outside India and in his home country. Humayun also looked towards Kabul and Qandhar. Akbar completely identified himself with India, its people and soil etc. He worked for the prosperity of India. He had loyalty to India alone and none else.

2. Union of Hindustan under one head:

According to Malleson, “Akbar’s foremost aim was the union of Hindustan under one head which was difficult to achieve had he persecuted all Non-Islamic religions. To accomplish this, it was necessary first to conquer, secondly to respect all consciences and all methods of worshipping the Almighty.” Thus Akbar’s aim to expand his empire in India was to unify the scattered kingdoms under one umbrella. However according to Dr. R.P. Tripathi, the aim of Akbar was more ambitious than that of national king. Akbar in his view wanted to bring the entire world under his control as he was an expansionist.

3. Equal treatment with all subjects:

Famous artist Ferguson has written, “There is nothing more remarkable in Akbar’s character as his toleration which influenced all his activities. He had the same love and appreciation for all his Hindu subjects as he had for his co-religionists.”

4. Synthesis of all religions:

Akbar attempted to being about synthesis of all religions. ‘Ibadat Khana’ was established for religious discussions.

5. Founding of Din-i-Ilahi:

On the basis of good points of all religions, Akbar founded a new religion and such a step could he taken only by a national ruler.

6. Appointments on merits and not on religious basis:

Merit was the basis of all appointments and this led to great efficiency in his administration. By this policy Akbar won the heart of the Hindus. Todar Mal, was appointed an Finance Minister. Bhagwan Dass, Man Singh and Birbal were among the high-ups.

7. Akbar’s ‘Nav-ratnas’ (Nine Jewels):

Out of nine distinguished persons of his court, four were Hindus.

8. Removal of restrictions upon the Hindus:

Akbar abolished the pilgrim tax as well as jizya tax. He gave religious freedom to all.

9. Matrimonial alliances with the Hindus:

Akbar entered into matrimonial alliances with several Rajput families. However it is not clear why no girl from the royal family was married into Hindu family.

10. Cultural synthesis of Hindus and Muslims:

Akbar made vigorous efforts to bring about fusion of Hindu and Muslim art and literature.

(a) Architecture:

The effects of both Persian and Indian art are clearly visible in his buildings built at Fatehpur Sikri, Agra and Delhi.

(b) Painting:

It is said that not less than 13 out of 17 most important painters of his court were Hindus.

(c) Literature:

Akbar established a special translation department with the objective of translating the sacred books of the Hindus from Sanskrit into Persian.

Summing up:

From the accounts given above, it is clear that Akbar was a national ruler. Jawaharlal Nehru has rightly described him, “Father of Indian nationalism.”