British Raj

British Raj

The British Raj (rāj, meaning "rule" in Hindi)[1] was the British rule over the Indian subcontinent between 1858 and 1947.[2] The term can also refer to the period of dominion.[2][3] The region under British control—commonly called "India" in the British period—included areas directly administered by the United Kingdom (contemporaneously, "British India") as well as the princely states ruled by individual rulers under the paramountcy of the British Crown. The region was less commonly also called the Indian Empire.[4] As India, it was a founding member of the League of Nations, a participating nation in the Summer Olympics in 1900, 1920, 1928, 1932, and 1936, and a founding member of the United Nations in San Francisco in 1945.[5]

The system of governance was instituted in 1858, when the rule of the British East India Company was transferred to the Crown in the person of Queen Victoria[6] (and who, in 1876, was proclaimed Empress of India), and lasted until 1947, when the British Indian Empire was partitioned into two sovereign dominion states, the Union of India (later the Republic of India) and the Dominion of Pakistan (later the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, the eastern half of which, still later, became the People's Republic of Bangladesh). At the inception of the Raj in 1858, Lower Burma was already a part of British India; Upper Burma was added in 1886, and the resulting union, Burma, was administered as a province until 1937, when it became a separate British colony, gaining its own independence in 1948.


  • Geographical extent 1
  • Economic extent 2
  • British India and the Native States 3
    • Major provinces 3.1
    • Minor provinces 3.2
    • Princely states 3.3
    • Organization 3.4
  • 1858–1914 4
    • Aftermath of the Rebellion of 1857: Indian critiques, British response 4.1
    • Legal modernisation 4.2
    • Education 4.3
    • Economic history 4.4
      • Industry 4.4.1
      • Railways 4.4.2
      • Policies 4.4.3
    • 1860s–1890s: New middle class, Indian National Congress 4.5
    • 1870s–1907: Social reformers, moderates vs. extremists 4.6
    • Partition of Bengal (1905–1911) 4.7
    • 1906–1909: Muslim League, Minto-Morley reforms 4.8
  • 1914–1947 5
    • 1914–1918: First World War, Lucknow Pact 5.1
    • 1917–1919: Satyagraha, Montagu-Chelmsford reforms, Jallianwalla Bagh 5.2
    • 1920s: Nonco-operation, Khilafat, Simon Commission, Jinnah's fourteen points 5.3
    • 1929–1937: Round Table conferences, Government of India Act 5.4
    • 1938–1941: World War II, Muslim League's Lahore Resolution 5.5
    • 1942–1945: Cripps mission, Quit India Resolution, INA 5.6
    • 1946: Elections, Cabinet mission, Direct Action Day 5.7
    • 1947: Planning for partition 5.8
    • 1947: Violence, partition, independence 5.9
  • Ideological impact 6
  • Famines, epidemics, public health 7
  • See also 8
  • Notes and references 9
  • Bibliography 10
    • Surveys 10.1
    • Specialised topics 10.2
    • Economic history 10.3
    • Gazetteers, statistics and primary sources 10.4

Geographical extent

The British Raj extended over almost all present-day India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh, with exceptions such as Goa and Pondicherry.[7] In addition, at various times, it included Aden (from 1858 to 1937),[8] Lower Burma (from 1858 to 1937), Upper Burma (from 1886 to 1937), British Somaliland (briefly from 1884 to 1898), and Singapore (briefly from 1858 to 1867). Burma was separated from India and directly administered by the British Crown from 1937 until its independence in 1948. The Trucial States of the Persian Gulf were theoretically princely states as well as Presidencies and provinces of British India until 1946 and used the rupee as their unit of currency.[9]

Among other countries in the region, Ceylon (now Sri Lanka) was ceded to Britain in 1802 under the Treaty of Amiens. Ceylon was part of Madras Presidency between 1793 and 1798.[10] The kingdoms of Nepal and Bhutan, having fought wars with the British, subsequently signed treaties with them and were recognised by the British as independent states.[11][12] The Kingdom of Sikkim was established as a princely state after the Anglo-Sikkimese Treaty of 1861; however, the issue of sovereignty was left undefined.[13] The Maldive Islands were a British protectorate from 1887 to 1965 but not part of British India.

Economic extent

In 1780, the conservative British politician Edmund Burke raised the issue of India's position: he vehemently attacked the East India Company, claiming that Warren Hastings and other top officials had ruined the Indian economy and society. Indian historian Rajat Kanta Ray (1998) continues this line of attack, saying the new economy brought by the British in the 18th century was a form of "plunder" and a catastrophe for the traditional economy of Mughal India.[14] Ray accuses the British of depleting the food and money stocks and of imposing high taxes that helped cause the terrible Bengal famine of 1770, which killed a third of the people of Bengal.[15]

P. J. Marshall shows that recent scholarship has reinterpreted the view that the prosperity of the formerly benign Mughal rule gave way to poverty and anarchy.[16] He argues the British takeover did not make any sharp break with the past, which largely delegated control to regional Mughal rulers and sustained a generally prosperous economy for the rest of the 18th century. Marshall notes the British went into partnership with Indian bankers and raised revenue through local tax administrators and kept the old Mughal rates of taxation.

Many historians agree that the East India Company inherited an onerous taxation system that took one-third of the produce of Indian cultivators.[14] Instead of the Indian nationalist account of the British as alien aggressors, seizing power by brute force and impoverishing all of India, Marshall presents the interpretation (supported by many scholars in India and the West) that the British were not in full control but instead were players in what was primarily an Indian play and in which their rise to power depended upon excellent co-operation with Indian elites.[16] Marshall admits that much of his interpretation is still highly controversial among many historians.[17]

British India and the Native States

India during the British Raj was made up of two types of territory: British India and the Native States (or Princely States).[18] In its Interpretation Act 1889, the British Parliament adopted the following definitions:

(1.) The expression "British India" shall mean all territories and places within Her Majesty's dominions which are for the time being governed by Her Majesty through the Governor-General of India or through any governor or other officer subordinate to the Governor-General of India.
(2.) The expression "India" shall mean British India together with any territories of any native prince or chief under the suzerainty of Her Majesty exercised through the Governor-General of India, or through any governor or other officer subordinate to the Governor-General of India.[19]

In general, the term "British India" had been used (and is still used) to refer also to the regions under the rule of the British East India Company in India from 1600 to 1858.[20] The term has also been used to refer to the "British in India".[21]

The terms "Indian Empire" and "Empire of India" (like the term "British Empire") were not used in legislation. The monarch was known as Empress or Emperor of India and the term was often used in Queen Victoria's Queen's Speeches and Prorogation Speeches. The passports issued by the British Indian government had the words "Indian Empire" on the cover and "Empire of India" on the inside.[22] In addition, an order of knighthood, the Most Eminent Order of the Indian Empire, was set up in 1878.

Suzerainty over 175 princely states, some of the largest and most important, was exercised (in the name of the British Crown) by the central government of British India under the Viceroy; the remaining approximately 500 states were dependents of the provincial governments of British India under a Governor, Lieutenant-Governor, or Chief Commissioner (as the case might have been).[23] A clear distinction between "dominion" and "suzerainty" was supplied by the jurisdiction of the courts of law: the law of British India rested upon the laws passed by the British Parliament and the legislative powers those laws vested in the various governments of British India, both central and local; in contrast, the courts of the Princely States existed under the authority of the respective rulers of those states.[23]

Major provinces

At the turn of the 20th century, British India consisted of eight provinces that were administered either by a Governor or a Lieutenant-Governor.
Areas and populations (excluding dependent Native States) circa 1907[24]
Province of British India
(and present day territories)
Total area in km² (sq mi) Population in 1901 (in millions) Chief administrative officer
6 Chief Commissioner
(Bangladesh, West Bengal, Bihar, Jharkhand and Orissa)
75 Lieutenant-Governor
(Sindh and parts of Maharashtra, Gujarat and Karnataka)
19 Governor-in-Council
9 Lieutenant-Governor
Central Provinces
(Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh)
13 Chief Commissioner
(Tamil Nadu and parts of Andhra Pradesh, Kerala and Karnataka)
38 Governor-in-Council
(Punjab Province, Islamabad Capital Territory, Punjab, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Chandigarh and the National Capital Territory of Delhi)
20 Lieutenant-Governor
United Provinces
(Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand)
48 Lieutenant-Governor

During the partition of Bengal (1905–1911), the new provinces of Assam and East Bengal were created as a Lieutenant-Governorship. In 1911, East Bengal was reunited with Bengal, and the new provinces in the east became: Assam, Bengal, Bihar and Orissa.[24]

Minor provinces

In addition, there were a few minor provinces that were administered by a Chief Commissioner:[25]
Minor Province of British India
(and present day territories)
Total Area in km² (sq mi) Population in 1901 (in thousands) Chief Administrative Officer
(parts of Rajasthan)
477 ex officio Chief Commissioner
Andaman and Nicobar Islands
(Andaman and Nicobar Islands)
25 Chief Commissioner
British Baluchistan
308 ex officio Chief Commissioner
(Kodagu district)
181 ex officio Chief Commissioner
North West Frontier Province
(Khyber Pakhtunkhwa)
2,125 Chief Commissioner

Princely states

1909 Map of the British Indian Empire, showing British India in two shades of pink and the princely states in yellow, except Nepal and Bhutan.

A Princely State, also called a Native State or an Indian State, was a nominally sovereign entity with an indigenous Indian ruler, subject to a subsidiary alliance.[26] There were 565 princely states when India and Pakistan became independent from Britain in August 1947. The princely states did not form a part of British India (i.e. the presidencies and provinces), as they were not directly under British rule. The larger ones had treaties with Britain that specified which rights the princes had; in the smaller ones the princes had few rights. Within the princely states external affairs, defence and most communications were under British control.[27] The British also exercised a general influence over the states' internal politics, in part through the granting or withholding of recognition of individual rulers. Although there were nearly 600 princely states, the great majority were very small and contracted out the business of government to the British. Some two hundred of the states had an area of less than 25 square kilometres (10 square miles).[26]


Sir Charles Wood (1800–1885) was President of the Board of Control of the East India Company from 1852 to 1855; he shaped British education policy in India, and was Secretary of State for India 1859–66. 
Lord Canning, the last Governor-General of India under Company rule and the first Viceroy of India under Crown rule. 
Lord Salisbury was Secretary of State for India 1874–78. 

Following the Indian Rebellion of 1857 (usually called the Indian Mutiny by the British), the Government of India Act 1858 made changes in the governance of India at three levels:

  1. in the imperial government in London,
  2. in the central government in Calcutta, and
  3. in the provincial governments in the presidencies (and later in the provinces).[28]

In London, it provided for a cabinet-level Secretary of State for India and a fifteen-member Council of India, whose members were required, as one prerequisite of membership, to have spent at least ten years in India and to have done so no more than ten years before.[29] Although the Secretary of State formulated the policy instructions to be communicated to India, he was required in most instances to consult the Council, but especially so in matters relating to spending of Indian revenues. The Act envisaged a system of "double government" in which the Council ideally served both as a check on excesses in imperial policy making and as a body of up-to-date expertise on India. However, the Secretary of State also had special emergency powers that allowed him to make unilateral decisions, and, in reality, the Council's expertise was sometimes outdated.[30] From 1858 until 1947, twenty seven individuals served as Secretary of State for India and directed the India Office; these included: Sir Charles Wood (1859–1866), Marquess of Salisbury (1874–1878; later Prime Minister of Britain), John Morley (1905–1910; initiator of the Minto-Morley Reforms), E. S. Montagu (1917–1922; an architect of the Montagu-Chelmsford reforms), and Frederick Pethick-Lawrence (1945–1947; head of the 1946 Cabinet Mission to India). The size of the advisory Council was reduced over the next half-century, but its powers remained unchanged. In 1907, for the first time, two Indians were appointed to the Council.[31] They were K.G. Gupta and Syed Hussain Bilgrami.

In Calcutta, the Governor-General remained head of the Government of India and now was more commonly called the Viceroy on account of his secondary role as the Crown's representative to the nominally sovereign princely states; he was, however, now responsible to the Secretary of State in London and through him to Parliament. A system of "double government" had already been in place during the Company's rule in India from the time of Pitt's India Act of 1784. The Governor-General in the capital, Calcutta, and the Governor in a subordinate presidency (Madras or Bombay) was each required to consult his advisory council; executive orders in Calcutta, for example, were issued in the name of "Governor-General-in-Council" (i.e. the Governor-General with the advice of the Council). The Company's system of "double government" had its critics, since, from the time of the system's inception, there had been intermittent feuding between the Governor-General and his Council; still, the Act of 1858 made no major changes in governance.[32] However, in the years immediately thereafter, which were also the years of post-rebellion reconstruction, Viceroy Lord Canning found the collective decision making of the Council to be too time-consuming for the pressing tasks ahead, so he requested the "portfolio system" of an Executive Council in which the business of each government department (the "portfolio") was assigned to and became the responsibility of a single council member.[31] Routine departmental decisions were made exclusively by the member, but important decisions required the consent of the Governor-General and, in the absence of such consent, required discussion by the entire Executive Council. This innovation in Indian governance was promulgated in the Indian Councils Act 1861.

If the Government of India needed to enact new laws, the Councils Act allowed for a Legislative Council—an expansion of the Executive Council by up to twelve additional members, each appointed to a two-year term—with half the members consisting of British officials of the government (termed official) and allowed to vote, and the other half, comprising Indians and domiciled Britons in India (termed non-official) and serving only in an advisory capacity.[33] All laws enacted by Legislative Councils in India, whether by the Imperial Legislative Council in Calcutta or by the provincial ones in Madras and Bombay, required the final assent of the Secretary of State in London; this prompted Sir Charles Wood, the second Secretary of State, to describe the Government of India as "a despotism controlled from home".[31] Moreover, although the appointment of Indians to the Legislative Council was a response to calls after the 1857 rebellion, most notably by Sir Sayyid Ahmad Khan, for more consultation with Indians, the Indians so appointed were from the landed aristocracy, often chosen for their loyalty, and far from representative.[34] Even so, the "... tiny advances in the practice of representative government were intended to provide safety valves for the expression of public opinion, which had been so badly misjudged before the rebellion".[35] Indian affairs now also came to be more closely examined in the British Parliament and more widely discussed in the British press.[36]


Aftermath of the Rebellion of 1857: Indian critiques, British response

Although the Great Uprising of 1857 had shaken the British enterprise in India, it had not derailed it. After the rebellion, the British became more circumspect. Much thought was devoted to the causes of the rebellion, and from it three main lessons were drawn. At a more practical level, it was felt that there needed to be more communication and camaraderie between the British and Indians—not just between British army officers and their Indian staff but in civilian life as well. The Indian army was completely reorganised: units composed of the Muslims and Brahmins of the

  • Keith, Arthur Berriedale (1912). Responsible government in the dominions. The Clarendon press. , major primary source
  • Indian Year-book for 1862: A review of social, intellectual, and religious progress in India and Ceylon (1863), ed. by John Murdoch online edition 1861 edition
  • The Year-book of the Imperial Institute of the United Kingdom, the colonies and India: a statistical record of the resources and trade of the colonial and Indian possessions of the British Empire (2nd. ed. 1893) India, pp. 375–462 online edition
  • The Imperial Gazetteer of India (26 vol, 1908–31), highly detailed description of all of India in 1901. online edition
  • Statistical abstract relating to British India, from 1895–96 to 1904–05 (London, 1906) full text online,
  • The Cyclopedia of India: biographical, historical, administrative, commercial (1908) complete text online, business history, biographies, illustrations
  • The Indian year book: 1914 (1914) snippets

Gazetteers, statistics and primary sources

  • Anstey, Vera. The economic development of India (4th ed. 1952), 677pp; thorough scholarly coverage; focus on 20th century down to 1939
  • Derbyshire, I. D. (1987), "Economic Change and the Railways in North India, 1860–1914", Population Studies 21 (3): 521–545,  
  • Dutt, Romesh C. The Economic History of India under early British Rule, first published 1902, 2001 edition by Routledge, ISBN 978-0-415-24493-0
  • Iftikhar-ul-Awwal, A. Z. M. (1982) The Industrial Development of Bengal, 1900-1939 (New Delhi) ISBN 0706915798
  • Iftikhar-ul-Awwal, A. Z. M. (1978) The industrial development of Bengal 1900-1939 : an examination of the economic features of an underdeveloped area PhD Thesis, School of Oriental & African Studies (SOAS), University of London.
  • Iftikhar-ul-Awwal (1985) The Indian mines maternity benefit question, 1919-1947, The Indian Economic & Social History Review 22 (3), 329-351
  • Iftikhar-ul-Awwal (1992) State of Indigenous Industries, History of Bangladesh 1704-1971. Volume 2, Economic History, Sirajul Islam (ed.), First Edition, Chapter 10, the Asiatic Society of Bangladesh, Pp. 272-370, ISBN 9845123376
  • Iftikhar-ul-Awwal (1982) The Problem of Middle Class Educated Unemployment in Bengal, 1912-1942, The Indian Economic & Social History Review, 19 (1), 27-45
  • Iftikhar-ul-Awwal (1989) The State and Industry in Bengal, c. 1880-1942, Studies in History, 5 (1), 73-98
  • Iftikhar-ul-Awwal (1980) Genesis and Operation of the Bengal State Aid to Industries Act, 1931, The Indian Economic & Social History Review, 17 (4), 409-419
  • Iftikhar-ul-Awwal (1987) Government and Business Attitudes towards Labour Welfare in Bengal: The Maternity Benefit Question (1919-1947),in Dwijendra Tripathi edited 'State and Business in India: A Historical Perspective', pp.217-257 (New Delhi, 1987), ISBN 8185054266
  • Iftikhar-ul-Awwal (2004) Cotton Textiles in Bengal Economy, 1900-1947 in M. Mufakharul Islam edited 'Socio-Economic History of Bangladesh: essays in memory of Professor Shafiqur Rahman',(Asiatic Society of Bangladesh, June 2004), pp.1-36, ISBN 9843200467
  • Iftikhar-ul-Awwal (1979) Supply of Labour to Bengal Tea Industry 1900-1939, Bangladesh Historical Studies, Vol. IV, pp. 49-63, (Dhaka, 1979)
  • Iftikhar-ul-Awwal (1981) The Activities of the Bengal Home Industries Association, 1917-1940, Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bangladesh, Vols. XXIV-XXVI, 1979-81,pp.179-188
  • Iftikhar-ul-Awwal (1987) Murder in the District of Bakergunge in the late Nineteenth Century,Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bangladesh, Vol. XXXII, No. 2 (1987), pp.165-210
  • Iftikhar-ul-Awwal (1987) Anti-Dacoity Drive in Mid- Nineteenth Century Bengal, Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bangladesh, Vol. 35, No. 1, June 1990, pp.89-105
  • Iftikhar-ul-Awwal (1990) Extent and Nature of Dacoity in Bengal Countryside, 1837-1863,Dhaka University Studies, Vol. 47, No. 2, December, 1990,pp.51-69.
  • Lockwood, David. The Indian Bourgeoisie: A Political History of the Indian Capitalist Class in the Early Twentieth Century (I.B. Tauris, 2012) 315 pages; focus on Indian entrepreneurs who benefited from the Raj, but ultimately sided with the Indian National Congress.
  • Roy, Tirthankar (2002), "Economic History and Modern India: Redefining the Link", The Journal of Economic Perspectives 16 (3): 109–130,  
  • Simmons, Colin (1985), De-Industrialization', Industrialization and the Indian Economy, c. 1850–1947"'", Modern Asian Studies 19 (3): 593–622,  
  • Tomlinson, B. R. The Economy of Modern India, 1860–1970 (The New Cambridge History of India) (1996) excerpt and text search
  • Tomlinson, B. H. "India and the British Empire, 1880–1935", Indian Economic and Social History Review, (Oct 1975), 12#4 pp. 337–380

Economic history

  • Baker, David, Colonialism in an Indian Hinterland: The Central Provinces, 1820–1920, Delhi and Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pp. xiii, 374,  
  • Brown, Judith M. Gandhi: Prisoner of Hope (1991), scholarly biography
  • Brown, Judith M.; Louis, Wm. Roger, eds. (2001), Oxford History of the British Empire: The Twentieth Century, Oxford University Press. Pp. 800,  
  • Carrington, Michael. Officers, Gentlemen, and Murderers: Lord Curzon's campaign against "collisions" between Indians and Europeans, 1899 –1905, Modern Asian Studies / Volume 47 / Issue 03 / May 2013, pp. 780 – 819.
  •  .
  • Chatterji, Joya (1993), Bengal Divided: Hindu Communalism and Partition, 1932–1947, Cambridge University Press. Pp. 323,  .
  • Copland, Ian (2002), Princes of India in the Endgame of Empire, 1917–1947, (Cambridge Studies in Indian History & Society). Cambridge University Press. Pp. 316,  .
  • Manmath Nath Das (1964). India under Morley and Minto: politics behind revolution, repression and reforms. G. Allen and Unwin. 
  • Dewey, Clive. Anglo-Indian Attitudes: The Mind of the Indian Civil Service (2003)
  • Ewing, Ann. "Administering India: The Indian Civil Service", History Today, June 1982, 32#6 pp. 43–48, covers 1858–1947
  • Gilmartin, David. 1988. Empire and Islam: Punjab and the Making of Pakistan. University of California Press. 258 pages. ISBN 978-0-520-06249-8.
  • Gilmour, David. The Ruling Caste: Imperial Lives in the Victorian Raj (2007)
  • Gilmour, David. Curzon: Imperial Statesman (2006) excerpt and text search
  • Gopal, Sarvepalli (1 January 1976). Jawaharlal Nehru: A Biography. Harvard U. Press.  
  • Sarvepalli Gopal (1953). The viceroyalty of Lord Ripon, 1880–1884. Oxford U. Press. Retrieved 21 February 2012. 
  • Gould, William (2004), Hindu Nationalism and the Language of Politics in Late Colonial India, Cambridge U. Press. Pp. 320 .
  • Gopal, Sarvepalli. British Policy in India 1858–1905 (2008)
  • Gopal, Sarvepalli. Viceroyalty of Lord Irwin 1926–1931 (1957)
  •  .
  • Kaminsky, Arnold P. The India Office, 1880–1910 (1986) excerpt and text search, focus on officials in London
  • Khan, Yasmin (2007), The Great Partition: The Making of India and Pakistan, Yale U. Press, 250 pages,  
  • Klein, Ira (2000), "Materialism, Mutiny and Modernization in British India", Modern Asian Studies 34 (3): 545–580 
  • Kumar, Deepak. Science and the Raj: A Study of British India (2006)
  •  .
  • Lipsett, Chaldwell. Lord Curzon in India 1898–1903 (1903) excerpt and text search 128pp
  • MacMillan, Margaret. Women of the Raj: The Mothers, Wives, and Daughters of the British Empire in India (2007)
  • Moor-Gilbert, Bart. Writing India, 1757–1990: The Literature of British India (1996) on fiction written in English
  • Moore, Robin J. "Imperial India, 1858–1914", in Porter, ed. Oxford History of the British Empire: The Nineteenth Century, (2001a), pp. 422–446
  • Moore, Robin J. "India in the 1940s", in Robin Winks, ed. Oxford History of the British Empire: Historiography, (2001b), pp. 231–242
  • Porter, Andrew, ed. (2001), Oxford History of the British Empire: Nineteenth Century, Oxford University Press. Pp. 800,  
  • Masood Ashraf Raja. Constructing Pakistan: Foundational Texts and the Rise of Muslim National Identity, 1857–1947, Oxford 2010, ISBN 978-0-19-547811-2
  • Ramusack, Barbara (2004), The Indian Princes and their States (The New Cambridge History of India), Cambridge University Press. Pp. 324,  
  • Read, Anthony, and David Fisher; The Proudest Day: India's Long Road to Independence (W. W. Norton, 1999) online edition; detailed scholarly history of 1940–47
  • Venkataramani, M. S.; Shrivastava, B. K. Quit India: The American Response to the
  • Shaikh, Farzana (1989), Community and Consensus in Islam: Muslim Representation in Colonial India, 1860—1947, Cambridge University Press. Pp. 272.,  .
  • Talbot, Ian; Singh, Gurharpal, eds. (1999), Region and Partition: Bengal, Punjab and the Partition of the Subcontinent, Oxford University Press. Pp. 420,  .
  • Thatcher, Mary. Respected Memsahibs: an Anthology (Hardinge Simpole, 2008)
  • Tinker, Hugh (1968), "India in the First World War and after" Journal of Contemporary History, Vol. 3, No. 4, 1918–19: From War to Peace. (Oct., 1968), pp. 89–107,  .
  • Voigt, Johannes. India in The Second World War (1988)
  • Wainwright, A. Martin (1993), Inheritance of Empire: Britain, India, and the Balance of Power in Asia, 1938–55, Praeger Publishers. Pp. xvi, 256,  .
  • Wolpert, Stanley A. Jinnah of Pakistan (2005)
  • Wolpert, Stanley (2007), "India: British Imperial Power 1858–1947 (Indian nationalism and the British response, 1885–1920; Prelude to Independence, 1920–1947)", Encyclopædia Britannica .
  • Wolpert, Stanley A. Tilak and Gokhale: revolution and reform in the making of modern India (1962) full text online

Specialised topics

  • Bandhu, Deep Chand. History of Indian National Congress (2003) 405pp
  • Bandyopadhyay, Sekhar (2004), From Plassey to Partition: A History of Modern India, New Delhi and London: Orient Longmans. Pp. xx, 548.,  .
  •  .
  •  .
  • Copland, Ian (2001), India 1885–1947: The Unmaking of an Empire (Seminar Studies in History Series), Harlow and London: Pearson Longmans. Pp. 160,  .
  • Coupland, Reginald. India: A Re-Statement (Oxford University Press, 1945), evaluation of the Raj, emphasising government. online edition
  • Dodwell H. H., ed. The Cambridge History of India. Volume 6: The Indian Empire 1858–1918. With Chapters on the Development of Administration 1818–1858 (1932) 660pp online edition; also published as vol 5 of the Cambridge History of the British Empire
  • James, Lawrence. Raj: The Making and Unmaking of British India (2000)
  • Judd, Dennis (2004), The Lion and the Tiger: The Rise and Fall of the British Raj, 1600–1947, Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press. Pp. xiii, 280,  .
  • Kumar, Dharma, and Meghnad Desai, eds. The Cambridge Economic History of India, Volume 2: c. 1757–2003 (2010), 1114pp; articles by scholars ISBN 978-81-250-2731-7
  • Louis, William Roger, and Judith M. Brown, eds. The Oxford History of the British Empire (5 vol 1999–2001), with numerous articles on the Raj
  • Ludden, David. India And South Asia: A Short History (2002)
  • Metcalf, Barbara (2006), A Concise History of Modern India (Cambridge Concise Histories), Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press. Pp. xxxiii, 372,  .
  • Mansingh, Surjit The A to Z of India (2010), a concise historical encyclopaedia
  •  .
  • Markovits, Claude (ed) (2005), A History of Modern India 1480–1950 (Anthem South Asian Studies), Anthem Press. Pp. 607,  .
  • Moon, Penderel. The British Conquest and Dominion of India (2 vol. 1989) 1235pp; the fullest scholarly history of political and military events from a British top-down perspective;
  • Peers, Douglas M. (2006), India under Colonial Rule 1700–1885, Harlow and London: Pearson Longmans. Pp. xvi, 163,  .
  • Riddick, John F. The history of British India: a chronology (2006) excerpt and text search, covers 1599–1947
  • Riddick, John F. Who Was Who in British India (1998), covers 1599–1947
  • Sarkar, Sumit. Modern India, 1885–1947 (2002)
  • Smith, Vincent A. (1958) The Oxford History of India (3rd ed.) the Raj section was written by Percival Spear
  • Spear, Percival (1990), A History of India, Volume 2, New Delhi and London: Penguin Books. Pp. 298,  . online edition
  •  .
  • Thompson, Edward, and G.T. Garratt. Rise and Fulfilment of British Rule in India (1934) 690 pages; scholarly survey, 1599–1933 excerpt and text search
  •  .



  1. ^ Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd edition, 1989: from Skr. rāj: to reign, rule; cognate with L. rēx, rēg-is, OIr. , rīg king (see RICH).
  2. ^ a b Oxford English Dictionary, 3rd edition (June 2008), on-line edition (September 2011): "spec. In full British Raj. Direct rule in India by the British (1858–1947); this period of dominion."
  3. ^ Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd edition, 1989. Examples: 1955 Times 25 Aug 9/7 It was effective against the British raj in India, and the conclusion drawn here is that the British knew that they were wrong. 1969 R. MILLAR Kut xv. 288 Sir Stanley Maude had taken command in Mesopotamia, displacing the raj of antique Indian Army commanders. 1975 H. R. ISAACS in H. M. Patel et al. Say not the Struggle Nought Availeth 251 The post-independence régime in all its incarnations since the passing of the British Raj.
  4. ^ The names "Empire of India" and "Federation of India" were also in use.
  5. ^
  6. ^ Kaul, Chandrika. "From Empire to Independence: The British Raj in India 1858–1947". Retrieved 3 March 2011. 
  7. ^ "The Geography of British India, Political & Physical (1882)". UK Archives. Retrieved 2 August 2014. 
  8. ^ Marshall (2001), p. 384
  9. ^ Subodh Kapoor (January 2002). The Indian encyclopaedia: biographical, historical, religious ..., Volume 6. Cosmo Publications. p. 1599.  
  10. ^ Codrington, 1926, Chapter X:Transition to British administration
  11. ^ "Nepal." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2008.
  12. ^ "Bhutan." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2008.
  13. ^ "Sikkim." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2007. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. 5 August 2007 .
  14. ^ a b c "Britain in India, Ideology and Economics to 1900". Fsmitha. F. Smith. Retrieved 2 August 2014. 
  15. ^ Rajat Kanta Ray, "Indian Society and the Establishment of British Supremacy, 1765–1818", in The Oxford History of the British Empire: vol. 2, "The Eighteenth Century" ed. by P. J. Marshall, (1998), pp. 508–29
  16. ^ a b c "IMPACT OF BRITISH RULE ON INDIA: ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND CULTURAL (1757–1857)". NIOS. Retrieved 2 August 2014. 
  17. ^ P.J. Marshall, "The British in Asia: Trade to Dominion, 1700–1765", in The Oxford History of the British Empire: vol. 2, The Eighteenth Century" ed. by P. J. Marshall, (1998), pp. 487–507
  18. ^ "India". World Digital Library. Retrieved 24 January 2013. 
  19. ^
  20. ^ 1. Imperial Gazetteer of India, volume IV, published under the authority of the Secretary of State for India-in-Council, 1909, Oxford University Press. page 5. Quote: "The history of British India falls, as observed by Sir C. P. Ilbert in his Government of India, into three periods. From the beginning of the seventeenth century to the middle of the eighteenth century the East India Company is a trading corporation, existing on the sufferance of the native powers and in rivalry with the merchant companies of Holland and France. During the next century the Company acquires and consolidates its dominion, shares its sovereignty in increasing proportions with the Crown, and gradually loses its mercantile privileges and functions. After the mutiny of 1857 the remaining powers of the Company are transferred to the Crown, and then follows an era of peace in which India awakens to new life and progress." 2. The Statutes: From the Twentieth Year of King Henry the Third to the ... by Robert Harry Drayton, Statutes of the Realm – Law – 1770 Page 211 (3) "Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, the law of British India and of the several parts thereof existing immediately before the appointed ..." 3. Edney, M.E. (1997) Mapping an Empire: The Geographical Construction of British India, 1765–1843, University of Chicago Press. 480 pages. ISBN 978-0-226-18488-3 4. Hawes, C.J. (1996) Poor Relations: The Making of a Eurasian Community in British India, 1773–1833. Routledge, 217 pages. ISBN 978-0-7007-0425-5.
  21. ^ Imperial Gazetteer of India vol. II 1908, p. 463,470 Quote1: "Before passing on to the political history of British India, which properly begins with the Anglo-French Wars in the Carnatic, ... (p.463)" Quote2: "The political history of the British in India begins in the eighteenth century with the French Wars in the Carnatic. (p.471)"
  22. ^ British Indian Passport of Muhammad Ali Jinnah
  23. ^ a b Imperial Gazetteer of India vol. IV 1907, p. 60
  24. ^ a b Imperial Gazetteer of India vol. IV 1907, p. 46
  25. ^ Imperial Gazetteer of India vol. IV 1907, p. 56
  26. ^ a b Markovits, Claude (2004). A history of modern India, 1480–1950. Anthem Press. pp. 386–409.  
  27. ^ "Provinces of British India". Worldstatesmen. Retrieved 2 August 2014. 
  28. ^ Robin J. Moore, "Imperial India, 1858–1914", pp 422–46
  29. ^ Moore, "Imperial India, 1858–1914", p. 424
  30. ^ Brown 1994, p. 96
  31. ^ a b c Moore, "Imperial India, 1858–1914", p. 426
  32. ^ Moore 2001a, p. 426
  33. ^ Metcalf & Metcalf 2006, p. 104
  34. ^ Peers 2006, p. 76
  35. ^ Bayly 1990, p. 195
  36. ^ Peers 2006, p. 72, Bayly 1990, p. 72
  37. ^ a b c Spear 1990, p. 147
  38. ^ a b c d e Spear 1990, pp. 147–148
  39. ^ European Madness and Gender in Nineteenth-century British India. Social History of Medicine 1996 9(3):357–382.
  40. ^ Robinson, Ronald Edward, & John Gallagher. 1968. Africa and the Victorians: The Climax of Imperialism. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday [2]
  41. ^ Radhika Singha, "Colonial Law and Infrastructural Power: Reconstructing Community, Locating the Female Subject", Studies in History, (Feb 2003), 19#1 pp. 87–126 online
  42. ^ Tazeen M. Murshid, "Law and Female Autonomy in Colonial India", Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bangladesh: Humanities, (June 2002), 47#1 pp. 25–42
  43. ^ Suresh Chandra Ghosh, "Bentinck, Macaulay and the introduction of English education in India", History of Education, (March 1995) 24#1 pp. 17–24
  44. ^ Spear, Percival (1938). "Bentinck and Education". Cambridge Historical Journal 6 (1): 78–101.  
  45. ^ Moore, "Imperial India, 1858–1914", p. 431
  46. ^ Zareer Masani, Indian Tales of the Raj (1988) p. 89
  47. ^ B. R. Tomlinson, The Economy of Modern India, 1860–1970 (1996) p. 5
  48. ^ B. H. Tomlinson, "India and the British Empire, 1880–1935", Indian Economic and Social History Review, (Oct 1975), 12#4 pp. 337–380
  49. ^ Madison, Angus (2006). The world economy, Volumes 1–2. OECD Publishing. p. 638. doi:10.1787/456125276116. ISBN 92-64-02261-9. Retrieved 1 November 2011.
  50. ^ Peter Robb, "British Rule and Indian "Improvement", Economic History Review (Nov 1981), 34#4 pp. 507–523 in JSTOR
  51. ^ F. H. Brown and B. R. Tomlinson, "Tata, Jamshed Nasarwanji (1839–1904)", in Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (2004) Retrieved 28 Jan 2012 doi:10.1093/ref:odnb/36421
  52. ^ Vinay Bahl, "The Emergence of Large-Scale Steel Industry in India Under British Colonial Rule, 1880–1907", Indian Economic and Social History Review, (Oct 1994) 31#4 pp. 413–460
  53. ^ Daniel R. Headrick, The tentacles of progress: technology transfer in the age of imperialism, 1850–1940, (1988) pp. 291–2
  54. ^ Vinay Bahl, Making of the Indian Working Class: A Case of the Tata Iron & Steel Company, 1880–1946 (1995) ch 8
  55. ^ Claude Markovits, Indian Business and Nationalist Politics 1931–39: The Indigenous Capitalist Class and the Rise of the Congress Party (Cambridge University Press, 2002) pp. 160–66
  56. ^ I. D. Derbyshire, "Economic Change and the Railways in North India, 1860–1914", Modern Asian Studies, (1987), 21#3 pp. 521–545 in JSTOR
  57. ^ R.R. Bhandari (2005). Indian Railways: Glorious 150 years. Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Government of India. pp. 1–19.  
  58. ^  
  59. ^ Hurd, John (2005). "Railways". In Kerr, Ian J. Railways in Modern India. New Delhi: Oxford University Press. pp. 147–172–96.  
  60. ^ a b "History of Indian Railways". IRFCA. Retrieved 2 August 2014. 
  61. ^ Daniel R. Headrick, The tentacles of progress: technology transfer in the age of imperialism, 1850–1940, (1988) pp. 78–79
  62. ^ Appletons' annual cyclopaedia and register of important events of the year: 1862. New York: D. Appleton & Company. 1863. p. 690. 
  63. ^ a b Khan, Shaheed (18 April 2002). "The great Indian Railway bazaar".  
  64. ^ Headrick, The tentacles of progress: technology transfer in the age of imperialism, 1850–1940, (1988) pp. 81–82, 291.
  65. ^ Wainwright, A. Marin (1994). Inheritance of Empire. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Publishing Group. p. 48.  
  66. ^ R. O. Christensen, "The State and Indian Railway Performance, 1870–1920: Part I, Financial Efficiency and Standards of Service", Journal of Transport History (September 1981) 2#2, pp. 1–15.
  67. ^ (Stein 2001, p. 259)
  68. ^ Laura Bear, Lines of the nation: Indian Railway workers, bureaucracy, and the intimate historical self (2007) – pp. 25–28
  69. ^ Arudra Burra, "The Indian Civil Service and the nationalist movement: neutrality, politics and continuity", Commonwealth and Comparative Politics, (Nov 2010), 48#4 pp. 404–432
  70. ^ B. R. Tomlinson, The economy of modern India, 1860–1970 (1996) p 109
  71. ^ Judith Brown, Modern India: The Origins of an Asian Democracy (1994) p. 12
  72. ^ Angus Maddison, The World Economy, pages 109–112, (2001)
  73. ^ a b c d (Spear 1990, p. 169)
  74. ^ a b (Spear 1990, p. 170)
  75. ^ a b (Majumdar, Raychaudhuri & Datta 1950, p. 888)
  76. ^ (Bose & Jalal 2003, p. 100)
  77. ^ James S. Olson and Robert S. Shadle, Historical Dictionary of the British Empire (1996) p 116
  78. ^ Helen S. Dyer, Pandita Ramabai: the story of her life (1900) online
  79. ^ David Ludden, India and South Asia: a short history (2002) p.197
  80. ^ Stanley A. Wolpert, Tilak and Gokhale: revolution and reform in the making of modern India (1962) p 67
  81. ^ Michael Edwardes, High Noon of Empire: India under Curzon (1965) p 77
  82. ^ Moore, "Imperial India, 1858–1914", p. 435
  83. ^ John R. McLane, "The Decision to Partition Bengal in 1905", Indian Economic and Social History Review, July 1965, 2#3, pp. 221–237
  84. ^ V. Sankaran Nair, Swadeshi movement: The beginnings of student unrest in South India (1985) excerpt and text search
  85. ^ Peter Heehs, The lives of Sri Aurobindo (2008) p. 184
  86. ^ (Bandyopadhyay 2005, p. 260)
  87. ^ Wolpert, A New History of India, pp. 275–276
  88. ^ Ludden (2002), pp. 200–201
  89. ^ Manmath Nath Das (1964). India under Morley and Minto: politics behind revolution, repression and reforms. G. Allen and Unwin. Retrieved 21 February 2012. 
  90. ^ (Robb 2004, p. 174)
  91. ^ India's contribution to the Great War. Calcutta: Govt of India. 1923. p. 74. 
  92. ^ a b c d e f Brown 1994, pp. 197–198
  93. ^ Olympic Games Antwerp. 1920: Official Report.
  94. ^ a b c Brown 1994, pp. 200–201
  95. ^ a b c d e Brown 1994, p. 199
  96. ^ a b c d Brown 1994, pp. 214–215
  97. ^ a b c d Brown 1994, pp. 210–213
  98. ^ a b c d Spear 1990, p. 190
  99. ^ Brown 1994, pp. 216–217
  100. ^ Balraj Krishna, India's Bismarck, Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel (2007) ch. 2
  101. ^ a b c d e f g h Brown 1994, pp. 203–204
  102. ^ a b c Brown 1994, pp. 201–202
  103. ^ a b c Brown 1994, pp. 195–196
  104. ^ a b c Stein 2001, p. 304
  105. ^ Ludden 2002, p. 208
  106. ^ a b c d e f g h i Brown 1994, pp. 205–207
  107. ^ Chhabra 2005, p. 2
  108. ^ Nick Lloyd, The Amritsar Massacre: The Untold Story of One Fateful Day (2011) p. 180
  109. ^ Derek Sayer, "British Reaction to the Amritsar Massacre 1919–1920", Past & Present, May 1991, Issue 131, pp. 130–164
  110. ^ Brain Bond, "Amritsar 1919", History Today, Sept 1963, Vol. 13 Issue 10, pp. 666–676
  111. ^ a b (Markovits 2004, pp. 373–374)
  112. ^ David C. Potter, "Manpower Shortage and the End of Colonialism: The Case of Indian Civil Service", Modern Asian Studies, (Jan 1973) 7#1 pp. 47–73
  113. ^ Simon Epstein, "District Officers in Decline: The Erosion of British Authority in the Bombay Countryside, 1919 to 1947", Modern Asian Studies, (May 1982) 16#3 pp. 493–518
  114. ^ (Low 1993, pp. 40, 156)
  115. ^ Piers Brendon, The Decline and Fall of the British Empire: 1781–1997 (2008) p. 394
  116. ^ (Low 1993, p. 154)
  117. ^ Andrew Muldoon, "Politics, Intelligence and Elections in Late Colonial India: Congress and the Raj in 1937", Journal of the Canadian Historical Association (2009), 20#2 pp. 160–188; Muldoon, Empire, politics and the creation of the 1935 India Act: last act of the Raj (2009)
  118. ^ a b "India and Pakistan win independence". History. Retrieved 2 August 2014. 
  119. ^ Ramachandra Guha, India After Gandhi: The History of the World's Largest Democracy (2007) p. 43
  120. ^ a b c d e Dr Chandrika Kaul (3 March 2011). "From Empire to Independence: The British Raj in India 1858–1947". BBC – History. BBC. Retrieved 2 August 2014. 
  121. ^ (Robb 2002, p. 190)
  122. ^ Stephen P. Cohen, The idea of Pakistan (2004) p. 28
  123. ^ D. N. Panigrahi, India's partition: the story of imperialism in retreat (2004) pp. 151–2
  124. ^ Recruitment was especially active in the Punjab province of British India, under the leadership of the then Premier Sir Sikandar Hayat Khan, who believed in cooperating with the British to achieve eventual independence for the Indian nation. For details of various recruitment drives by Sir Sikandar between 1939 and 1942, see Omer Tarin and Neal Dando, 'Memoirs of the Second World War: Major Shaukat Hayat Khan' (Critique) in Durbar:Journal of the Indian Military Historical Society, UK, Vol 27, No 3, Autumn 2010, pp. 136–137; and Speech of November 1941, at Retrieved 28 April 2012
  125. ^ Roy, Kaushik (2009). "Military Loyalty in the Colonial Context: A Case Study of the Indian Army during World War II". Journal of Military History 73 (2). 
  126. ^ Alan Jeffreys, and Patrick Rose, eds. The Indian Army 1939–47: Experience and Development (Farnham: Ashgate, 2012), 244pp online review
  127. ^ John F. Riddick, The history of British India: a chronology (2006) p. 142
  128. ^ Shyam Ratna Gupta, "New Light on the Cripps Mission", India Quarterly, (Jan 1972), Vol. 28 Issue 1, p. 69–74
  129. ^ a b (Metcalf & Metcalf 2006, pp. 206–207)
  130. ^ Bandyopadhyay 2004, pp. 418–420
  131. ^ Stein 2010, pp. 305,325": Jawaharlal Nehru and Subhas Bose were among those who, impatient with Gandhi's programmes and methods, looked upon socialism as an alternative for nationalistic policies capable of meeting the country's economic and social needs, as well as a link to potential international support. (p. 325) (p. 345)"
  132. ^ Low 2002, p. 297.
  133. ^ Low 2002, p. 313.
  134. ^ a b Low 1993, pp. 31–31.
  135. ^ Wolpert 2006, p. 69.
  136. ^ Bandyopadhyay 2004, p. 427.
  137. ^ Bayly & Harper 2007, p. 2.
  138. ^ Bose, Sugata (2011), His Majesty's Opponent: Subhas Chandra Bose and India's Struggle against Empire, Harvard University Press, p. 320,  
  139. ^ Stein 2001, pp. 345.
  140. ^ a b (Judd 2004, pp. 172–173)
  141. ^ (Judd 2004, pp. 170–171)
  142. ^ (Judd 2004, p. 172)
  143. ^ Sarvepalli Gopal (1976). Jawaharlal Nehru: A Biography. Harvard University Press. p. 362.  
  144. ^ Hyam 2007, p. 106
  145. ^ a b "Indian Independence". British Library: Help for Researchers. British Library. Retrieved 2 August 2014. portal to educational sources available in the India Office Records 
  146. ^ Brown 1994, p. 330 Quote: "India had always been a minority interest in British public life; no great body of public opinion now emerged to argue that war-weary and impoverished Britain should send troops and money to hold it against its will in an empire of doubtful value. By late 1946 both Prime Minister and Secretary of State for British India recognised that neither international opinion no their own voters would stand for any reassertion of the raj, even if there had been the men, money, and administrative machinery with which to do so." Sarkar 1983, p. 418 Quote: "With a war weary army and people and a ravaged economy, Britain would have had to retreat; the Labour victory only quickened the process somewhat." Metcalf & Metcalf 2006, p. 212 Quote: "More importantly, though victorious in war, Britain had suffered immensely in the struggle. It simply did not possess the manpower or economic resources required to coerce a restive India."
  147. ^ "The Road to Partition 1939–1947". Classroom Resources. National Archives. Retrieved 2 August 2014. 
  148. ^ Ian Talbot and Gurharpal Singh, The Partition of India (2009), passim
  149. ^ Maria Misra, Vishnu's crowded temple: India since the Great Rebellion (2008) p 237
  150. ^ a b c "Ideology and Empire in Eighteenth-Century India: the British in Bengal". History. Retrieved 2 August 2014. 
  151. ^ Thomas R. Metcalf, The New Cambridge History of India: Ideologies of the Raj (1995), pp 10–12, 34–35
  152. ^ Maurice Zinkin, "Legacies of the Raj", Asian Affairs, (Oct 1995, 26#3) online
  153. ^ Y. K. Malik and V. B. Singh, Hindu Nationalists in India: the rise of the Bharatiya Janata Party (Westview Press, 1994), p 14
  154. ^ Angus Maddison (2006). "Class structure and economic growth: India and Pakistan since the Moghuls". Taylor & Francis. p.53. ISBN 0-415-38259-9
  155. ^ Craig A. Lockard (2010). "Societies, Networks, and Transitions, Volume 3". Cengage Learning. p.610. ISBN 1-4390-8534-X
  156. ^ Davis, Mike. Late Victorian Holocausts. 1. Verso, 2000. ISBN 978-1-85984-739-8 pg 7
  157. ^ Davis, Mike. Late Victorian Holocausts. 1. Verso, 2000. ISBN 978-1-85984-739-8 pg 173
  158. ^ Sen, Amartya. Development as Freedom. ISBN 978-0-385-72027-4 ch 7
  159. ^ Ó Gráda, C.: "Famine: A Short History". Princeton University Press.
  160. ^ Hall-Matthews 2008, p. 1
  161. ^ Imperial Gazetteer of India vol. III 1907, p. 478
  162. ^ John Pike (24 July 2011). "Cholera- Biological Weapons". Retrieved 29 April 2012. 
  163. ^ The 1832 Cholera Epidemic in New York State, By G. William Beardslee
  164. ^ Infectious Diseases: Plague Through History,
  165. ^ Malaria – Medical History of British India, National Library of Scotland 2007
  166. ^ "Biography of Ronald Ross". The Nobel Foundation. Retrieved 15 June 2007. 
  167. ^ Leprosy – Medical History of British India, National Library of Scotland 2007
  168. ^ "Other histories of smallpox in South Asia". 18 July 2006. Retrieved 29 April 2012. 
  169. ^ "Feature Story: Smallpox". Retrieved 29 April 2012. 
  170. ^ Smallpox and Vaccination in British India During the Last Seventy Years, Proceedings of the Royal Society of Medicine, 1945 January; 38(3): 135–140.
  171. ^ Smallpox – some unknown heroes in smallpox eradication, Indian Journal of Medical Ethics
  172. ^ "Sir JJ Group of Hospitals". Retrieved 29 April 2012. 

Notes and references

See also

Sir Robert Grant directed his attention to establishing a systematic institution in Bombay for imparting medical knowledge to the natives.[172] In 1860, Grant Medical College became one of the four recognised colleges for teaching courses leading to degrees (alongside Elphinstone College, Deccan College and Government Law College, Mumbai).[16]

In 1881, around 120,000 leprosy patients existed in India. The central government passed the Lepers Act of 1898, which provided legal provision for forcible confinement of leprosy sufferers in India.[167] Under the direction of Mountstuart Elphinstone a program was launched to propagate smallpox vaccination.[168] Mass vaccination in India resulted in a major decline in smallpox mortality by the end of the 19th century.[169] In 1849 nearly 13% of all Calcutta deaths were due to smallpox.[170] Between 1868 and 1907, there were approximately 4.7 million deaths from smallpox.[171]

Fevers ranked as one of the leading causes of death in India in the 19th century.[165] Britain's Sir Ronald Ross, working in the Presidency General Hospital in Calcutta, finally proved in 1898 that mosquitoes transmit malaria, while on assignment in the Deccan at Secunderabad, where the Center for Tropical and Communicable Diseases is now named in his honour.[166]

The first cholera pandemic began in Bengal, then spread across India by 1820. Ten thousand British troops and countless Indians died during this pandemic.[162] Estimated deaths in India between 1817 and 1860 exceeded 15 million. Another 23 million died between 1865 and 1917.[163] The Third Pandemic of plague started in China in the middle of the 19th century, spreading disease to all inhabited continents and killing 10 million people in India alone.[164] Waldemar Haffkine, who mainly worked in India, became the first microbiologist to develop and deploy vaccines against cholera and bubonic plague. In 1925 the Plague Laboratory in Bombay was renamed the Haffkine Institute.

"... every District officer would be held personally responsible that no deaths occurred from starvation which could have been avoided by any exertion or arrangement on his part or that of his subordinates."

Having been criticised for the badly bungled relief-effort during the Orissa famine of 1866,[160] British authorities began to discuss famine policy soon afterwards, and in early 1868 Sir William Muir, Lieutenant-Governor of the North Western Provinces, issued a famous order stating that:[161]

During the British Raj, India experienced some of the worst famines ever recorded, including the Great Famine of 1876–1878, in which 6.1 million to 10.3 million people died[156] and the Indian famine of 1899–1900, in which 1.25 to 10 million people died.[157] Recent research, including work by Mike Davis and Amartya Sen,[158] argue that famines in India were made more severe British policy in India. An El Niño event caused the Indian famine of 1876–1878.[159]

Famines in India (Estimated deaths in millions)

According to Angus Maddison, "The British contributed to public health by introducing smallpox vaccination, establishing Western medicine and training modern doctors, by killing rats, and establishing quarantine procedures. As a result, the death rate fell and the population of India grew by 1947 to more than two-and-a- half times its size in 1757."[154]

Famines, epidemics, public health

At independence and since India has maintained such central British institutions as parliamentary government, one-person, one-vote and the rule of law through nonpartisan courts.[14] They retained as well the institutional arrangements of the Raj such as district administration, universities and stock exchanges. One major change was the rejection of separate princely states. Metcalf shows that over the course of two centuries, British intellectuals and Indian specialists made the highest priority bringing peace, unity and good government to India.[150] They offered many competing methods to reach the goal. For example, Cornwallis recommended turning Bengali Zamindar into the sort of English landlords that controlled local affairs in England.[150] Munro proposed to deal directly with the peasants. Sir William Jones and the Orientalists promoted Sanskrit, while Macaulay promoted the English language.[151] Zinkin argues that in the long-run, what matters most about the legacy of the Raj is the British political ideologies which the Indians took over after 1947, especially the belief in unity, democracy, the rule of law and a certain equality beyond caste and creed.[150] Zinkin sees this not just in the Congress party but also among Hindu Nationalists in the Bharatiya Janata Party, which specifically emphasises Hindu traditions.[152][153]

Ideological impact

The great majority of Indians remained in place with independence, but in border areas millions of people (Muslim, Sikh, and Hindu) relocated across the newly drawn borders. In Punjab, where the new border lines divided the Sikh regions in half, there was much bloodshed; in Bengal and Bihar, where Gandhi's presence assuaged communal tempers, the violence was more limited. In all, somewhere between 250,000 and 500,000 people on both sides of the new borders, among both the refugee and resident populations of the three faiths, died in the violence.[149] Other estimates of the number of deaths are as high as 1,500,000.[1]

On 14 August 1947, the new Dominion of Pakistan (later Islamic Republic of Pakistan) came into being, with Muhammad Ali Jinnah sworn in as its first Governor General in Karachi. The following day, 15 August 1947, India, the Union of India, (later Republic of India) came into being with official ceremonies taking place in New Delhi and Jawaharlal Nehru assuming the office of the prime minister, and the viceroy, Louis Mountbatten, staying on as its first Governor General.[148]

1947: Violence, partition, independence

As independence approached, the violence between Hindus and Muslims in the provinces of Punjab and Bengal continued unabated. With the British army unprepared for the potential for increased violence, the new viceroy, Louis Mountbatten, advanced the date for the transfer of power, allowing less than six months for a mutually agreed plan for independence.[145] In June 1947, the nationalist leaders, including Sardar Patel, Nehru and Abul Kalam Azad on behalf of the Congress, Jinnah representing the Muslim League, B. R. Ambedkar representing the Untouchable community, and Master Tara Singh representing the Sikhs, agreed to a partition of the country along religious lines in stark opposition to Gandhi's views.[120] The predominantly Hindu and Sikh areas were assigned to the new nation of India and predominantly Muslim areas to the new nation of Pakistan; the plan included a partition of the Muslim-majority provinces of Punjab and Bengal.[147]

Quote: ... Thus, Wavell concluded, if the army and the police "failed" Britain would be forced to go. In theory, it might be possible to revive and reinvigorate the services, and rule for another fifteen to twenty years, but:It is a fallacy to suppose that the solution lies in trying to maintain status quo. We have no longer the resources, nor the necessary prestige or confidence in ourselves.[146] decided to end British rule of India, and in early 1947 Britain announced its intention of transferring power no later than June 1948.[120]

Quote: ... it was clear to Attlee that everything depended on the spirit and reliability of the Indian Army: "Provided that they do their duty, armed insurrection in India would not be an insoluble problem.[120] If, however, the Indian Army was to go the other way, the picture would be very different ...

[145][120] Later that year, the

Percentage of Muslims by district. Map of British Indian Empire, 1909.
Percentage of Hindus by district. Map of British Indian Empire, 1909.

1947: Planning for partition

Also in early 1946, new elections were called in India. Earlier, at the end of the war in 1945, the colonial government had announced the public trial of three senior officers of Bose's defeated Indian National Army who stood accused of treason. Now as the trials began, the Congress leadership, although ambivalent towards the INA, chose to defend the accused officers.[141] The subsequent convictions of the officers, the public outcry against the convictions, and the eventual remission of the sentences, created positive propaganda for the Congress, which only helped in the party's subsequent electoral victories in eight of the eleven provinces.[142] The negotiations between the Congress and the Muslim League, however, stumbled over the issue of the partition. Jinnah proclaimed 16 August 1946, Direct Action Day, with the stated goal of highlighting, peacefully, the demand for a Muslim homeland in British India. The following day Hindu-Muslim riots broke out in Calcutta and quickly spread throughout India. Although the Government of India and the Congress were both shaken by the course of events, in September, a Congress-led interim government was installed, with Jawaharlal Nehru as united India's prime minister.[143]

In January 1946, a number of mutinies broke out in the armed services, starting with that of RAF servicemen frustrated with their slow repatriation to Britain.[140] The mutinies came to a head with mutiny of the Royal Indian Navy in Bombay in February 1946, followed by others in Calcutta, Madras, and Karachi. Although the mutinies were rapidly suppressed, they had the effect of spurring the new Labour government in Britain to action, and leading to the Cabinet Mission to India led by the Secretary of State for India, Lord Pethick Lawrence, and including Sir Stafford Cripps, who had visited four years before.[140]

1946: Elections, Cabinet mission, Direct Action Day

Bose's effort, however, was short lived. In 1945 the British army first halted and then reversed the Japanese U-Go offensive, beginning the successful part of the Burma Campaign. Bose's Indian National Army was driven down the Malay Peninsula, and surrendered with the recapture of Singapore. Bose died soon thereafter from third degree burns received after attempting to escape in an overloaded Japanese plane which crashed in Taiwan,[135] which many Indians believe did not happen.[136][137][138] Although Bose was unsuccessful, he roused patriotic feelings in India.[139]

Earlier, Indian National Army, composed largely of Indian soldiers of the British Indian army who had been captured by the Japanese in the Battle of Singapore. As the war turned against them, the Japanese came to support a number of puppet and provisional governments in the captured regions, including those in Burma, the Philippines and Vietnam, and in addition, the Provisional Government of Azad Hind, presided by Bose.[134]

Congress launched the "Quit India" movement in July 1942 demanding the immediate withdrawal of the British from India or face nationwide civil disobedience. On 8 August the Raj arrested all national, provincial and local Congress leaders, holding tens of thousands of them until 1945. The country erupted in violent demonstrations led by students and later by peasant political groups, especially in Eastern United Provinces, Bihar, and western Bengal. The large war-time British Army presence crushed the movement in a little more than six weeks;[129] nonetheless, a portion of the movement formed for a time an underground provisional government on the border with Nepal.[129] In other parts of India, the movement was less spontaneous and the protest less intensive, however it lasted sporadically into the summer of 1943. It did not slow down the British war effort or recruiting for the army.[130]

The British government sent the Cripps' mission in 1942 to secure Indian nationalists' co-operation in the war effort in exchange for a promise of independence as soon as the war ended. Top officials in Britain, most notably Prime Minister Winston Churchill, did not support the Cripps Mission and negotiations with the Congress soon broke down.[128]

Subhas Chandra Bose (second from left) with Heinrich Himmler (right), 1942.

1942–1945: Cripps mission, Quit India Resolution, INA

London paid most of the cost of the Indian Army, which had the effect of erasing India's national debt. It ended the war with a surplus of £1,300 million. In addition, heavy British spending on munitions produced in India (such as uniforms, rifles, machine-guns, field artillery, and ammunition) led to a rapid expansion of industrial output, such as textiles (up 16%), steel (up 18%), chemicals (up 30%). Small warships were built, and an aircraft factory opened in Bangalore. The railway system, with 700,000 employees, was taxed to the limit as demand for transportation soared.[127]

While the regular Indian army in 1939 included about 220,000 native troops, it expanded tenfold during the war[124] and small naval and air force units were created. Over two million Indians volunteered for military service in the British Army. They played a major role in numerous campaigns, especially in the Middle East and North Africa. Casualties were moderate (in terms of the world war), with 24,000 killed; 64,000 wounded; 12,000 missing (probably dead), and 60,000 captured at Singapore in 1942.[125][126]

"Islam and Hinduism ... are not religions in the strict sense of the word, but are, in fact, different and distinct social orders, and it is a dream that the Hindus and Muslims can ever evolve a common nationality, and this misconception of one Indian nation has troubles and will lead India to destruction if we fail to revise our notions in time. The Hindus and Muslims belong to two different religious philosophies, social customs, litterateurs. They neither intermarry nor interdine together and, indeed, they belong to two different civilisations which are based mainly on conflicting ideas and conceptions. Their aspect on life and of life are different ... To yoke together two such nations under a single state, one as a numerical minority and the other as a majority, must lead to growing discontent and final destruction of any fabric that may be so built for the government of such a state."[123]

The Congress was secular and strongly opposed having any religious state.[118] It insisted there was a natural unity to India, and repeatedly blamed the British for "divide and rule" tactics based on prompting Muslims to think of themselves as alien from Hindus. Jinnah rejected the notion of a united India, and emphasised that religious communities were more basic than an artificial nationalism. He proclaimed the Two-Nation Theory,[122] stating at Lahore on 22 March 1940:

Jinnah repeatedly warned that Muslims would be unfairly treated in an independent India dominated by the Congress. On 24 March 1940 in Lahore, the League passed the "Lahore Resolution", demanding that, "the areas in which the Muslims are numerically in majority as in the North-Western and Eastern zones of India should be grouped to constitute independent states in which the constituent units shall be autonomous and sovereign." Although there were other important national Muslim politicians such as Congress leader Ab'ul Kalam Azad, and influential regional Muslim politicians such as A. K. Fazlul Huq of the leftist Krishak Praja Party in Bengal, Sikander Hyat Khan of the landlord-dominated Punjab Unionist Party, and Abd al-Ghaffar Khan of the pro-Congress Khudai Khidmatgar (popularly, "red shirts") in the North West Frontier Province, the British, over the next six years, were to increasingly see the League as the main representative of Muslim India.[121]

While the Muslim League was a small elite group in 1927 with only 1300 members, it grew rapidly once it became an organisation that reached out to the masses, reaching 500,000 members in Bengal in 1944, 200,000 in Punjab, and hundreds of thousands elsewhere.[118] Jinnah now was well positioned to negotiate with the British from a position of power.[119] With the outbreak of World War II in 1939, the viceroy, Lord Linlithgow, declared war on India's behalf without consulting Indian leaders, leading the Congress provincial ministries to resign in protest. The Muslim League, in contrast, supported Britain in the war effort and maintained its control of the government in three major provinces, Bengal, Sind and the Punjab.[120]

Mahatma Gandhi and Rajendra Prasad (left) on their way to meet the viceroy Lord Linlithgow (13 October 1939) after the outbreak of World War II
Chaudhari Khaliquzzaman (left) seconding the 1940 Lahore Resolution of the Muslim League with Jinnah (right) presiding, and Liaquat Ali Khan centre. 
Newly arrived Indian troops on the quayside in Singapore, November 1941 
Indian Army Sikh troops in action during Operation Crusader in Western Desert Campaign in North Africa in November/December 1941. 

1938–1941: World War II, Muslim League's Lahore Resolution

In the 1937 elections Congress won victories in seven of the eleven provinces of British India.[116] Congress governments, with wide powers, were formed in these provinces. The widespread voter support for the Indian National Congress surprised Raj officials, who previously had seen the Congress as a small elitist body.[117]

The 1935 Act provided for more autonomy for Indian provinces, with the goal of cooling off nationalist sentiment. The act provided for a national parliament and an executive branch under the purview of the British government, but the rulers of the princely states managed to block its implementation. These states remained under the full control of their hereditary rulers, with no popular government. To prepare for elections Congress built up its grass roots membership from 473,000 in 1935 to 4.5 million in 1939.[115]

In 1935, after the Round Table Conferences, Parliament passed the Government of India Act 1935, which authorised the establishment of independent legislative assemblies in all provinces of British India, the creation of a central government incorporating both the British provinces and the princely states, and the protection of Muslim minorities. The future Constitution of independent India was based on this act.[114] However, it divided the electorate into 19 religious and social categories, e.g., Moslems, Sikhs, Indian Christians, Depressed Classes, Landholders, Commerce and Industry, Europeans, Anglo-Indians, etc., each of which was given separate representation in the Provincial Legislative Assemblies. A voter could cast a vote only for candidates in his own category.

In local terms, British control rested on the Indian Civil Service, but it faced growing difficulties. Fewer and fewer young men in Britain were interested in joining, and the continuing distrust of Indians resulted in a declining base in terms of quality and quantity. By 1945 Indians were numerically dominant in the ICS and at issue was loyal divided between the Empire and independence.[112] The finances of the Raj depended on land taxes, and these became problematic in the 1930s. Epstein argues that after 1919 it became harder and harder to collect the land revenue. The Raj's suppression of civil disobedience after 1934 temporarily increased the power of the revenue agents but after 1937 they were forced by the new Congress-controlled provincial governments to hand back confiscated land. Again the outbreak of war strengthened them, in the face of the Quit India movement the revenue collectors had to rely on military force and by 1946–47 direct British control was rapidly disappearing in much of the countryside.[113]

At its annual session in Lahore, the Indian National Congress, under the presidency of Jawaharlal Nehru, issued a demand for Purna Swaraj (Hindi: "complete independence"), or Purna Swarajya. The declaration was drafted by the Congress Working Committee, which included Gandhi, Nehru, Patel, and Chakravarthi Rajagopalachari. Gandhi subsequently led an expanded movement of civil disobedience, culminating in 1930 with the Salt Satyagraha, in which thousands of Indians defied the tax on salt, by marching to the sea and making their own salt by evaporating seawater. Although, many, including Gandhi, were arrested, the British government eventually gave in, and in 1931 Gandhi travelled to London to negotiate new reform at the Round Table Conferences.

Allama Muhammad Iqbal, fifth from left, arriving at the 1930 session of the All India Muslim League, where he delivered his presidential address outlining his plan for a homeland for the Muslims of British India. 
British PM Ramsay MacDonald to the right of Gandhi at the 2nd Round Table Conference. Foreground, fourth from left, is B. R. Ambedkar representing the "Depressed Classes." 
A first-day cover issued on 1 April 1937 commemorating the separation of Burma from the British Indian Empire. 

1929–1937: Round Table conferences, Government of India Act

The visit, in 1928, of the British Bardoli Satyagraha, brought Gandhi back into the fold of active politics.[111]

In 1920, after the British government refused to back down, Gandhi began his campaign of incident at Chauri Chaura, the movement revived again, in the mid-1920s.

Mahatma Gandhi with Dr. Annie Besant en route to a meeting in Madras in September 1921. Earlier, in Madurai, on 21 September 1921, Gandhi had adopted the loin-cloth for the first time as a symbol of his identification with India's poor. 
An early 1920s poster advertising a Congress non-co-operation "Public Meeting" and a "Bonfire of Foreign Clothes" in Bombay, and expressing support for the "Karachi Khilafat Conference." 
Hindus and Muslims, displaying the flags of both the Indian National Congress and the Muslim League, collecting clothes to be later burnt as a part of the non-co-operation movement initiated by Gandhi. 
Photograph of the staff and students of the National College, Lahore, founded in 1921 by Lala Lajpat Rai for students preparing for the non-co-operation movement. Standing, fourth from the right, is future revolutionary Bhagat Singh

1920s: Nonco-operation, Khilafat, Simon Commission, Jinnah's fourteen points

The Jallianwala Bagh massacre or "Amritsar massacre", took place in the Jallianwala Bagh public garden in the predominantly Sikh northern city of Amritsar. After days of unrest Brigadier-General Reginald E.H. Dyer forbade public meetings and on Sunday 13 April 1919 fifty British Indian Army soldiers commanded by Dyer began shooting at an unarmed gathering of thousands of men, women, and children without warning. Casualty estimates vary widely, with the Government of India reporting 379 dead, with 1,100 wounded.[108] The Indian National Congress estimated three times the number of dead. Dyer was removed from duty but he became a celebrated hero in Britain among people with connections to the Raj.[109] Historians consider the episode was a decisive step towards the end of British rule in India.[110]

A greater number of Indians were now enfranchised, although, for voting at the national level, they constituted only 10% of the total adult male population, many of whom were still illiterate.[106] In the provincial legislatures, the British continued to exercise some control by setting aside seats for special interests they considered cooperative or useful. In particular, rural candidates, generally sympathetic to British rule and less confrontational, were assigned more seats than their urban counterparts.[106] Seats were also reserved for non-Brahmins, landowners, businessmen, and college graduates. The principal of "communal representation", an integral part of the Minto-Morley Reforms, and more recently of the Congress-Muslim League Lucknow Pact, was reaffirmed, with seats being reserved for Muslims, Sikhs, Indian Christians, Anglo-Indians, and domiciled Europeans, in both provincial and Imperial legislative councils.[106] The Montagu-Chelmsford reforms offered Indians the most significant opportunity yet for exercising legislative power, especially at the provincial level; however, that opportunity was also restricted by the still limited number of eligible voters, by the small budgets available to provincial legislatures, and by the presence of rural and special interest seats that were seen as instruments of British control.[106] Its scope was unsatisfactory to the Indian political leadership, famously expressed by Annie Beasant as something "unworthy of England to offer and India to accept".[107]

Meanwhile, Montagu and Chelmsford themselves finally presented their report in July 1918 after a long fact-finding trip through India the previous winter.[106] After more discussion by the government and parliament in Britain, and another tour by the Franchise and Functions Committee for the purpose of identifying who among the Indian population could vote in future elections, the Government of India Act 1919 (also known as the Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms) was passed in December 1919.[106] The new Act enlarged both the provincial and Imperial legislative councils and repealed the Government of India's recourse to the "official majority" in unfavourable votes.[106] Although departments like defence, foreign affairs, criminal law, communications, and income-tax were retained by the Viceroy and the central government in New Delhi, other departments like public health, education, land-revenue, local self-government were transferred to the provinces.[106] The provinces themselves were now to be administered under a new dyarchical system, whereby some areas like education, agriculture, infrastructure development, and local self-government became the preserve of Indian ministers and legislatures, and ultimately the Indian electorates, while others like irrigation, land-revenue, police, prisons, and control of media remained within the purview of the British governor and his executive council.[106] The new Act also made it easier for Indians to be admitted into the civil service and the army officer corps.

To combat what it saw as a coming crisis, the government now drafted the Rowlatt committee's recommendations into two Rowlatt Bills.[98] Although the bills were authorised for legislative consideration by Edwin Montagu, they were done so unwillingly, with the accompanying declaration, "I loathe the suggestion at first sight of preserving the Defence of India Act in peace time to such an extent as Rowlatt and his friends think necessary."[101] In the ensuing discussion and vote in the Imperial Legislative Council, all Indian members voiced opposition to the bills. The Government of India was, nevertheless, able to use of its "official majority" to ensure passage of the bills early in 1919.[101] However, what it passed, in deference to the Indian opposition, was a lesser version of the first bill, which now allowed extrajudicial powers, but for a period of exactly three years and for the prosecution solely of "anarchical and revolutionary movements", dropping entirely the second bill involving modification the Indian Penal Code.[101] Even so, when it was passed, the new Rowlatt Act aroused widespread indignation throughout India, and brought Gandhi to the forefront of the nationalist movement.[98]

With the end of World War I, there was also a change in the economic climate. By the end of 1919, 1.5 million Indians had served in the armed services in either combatant or non-combatant roles, and India had provided £146 million in revenue for the war.[103] The increased taxes coupled with disruptions in both domestic and international trade had the effect of approximately doubling the index of overall prices in India between 1914 and 1920.[103] Returning war veterans, especially in the Punjab, created a growing unemployment crisis,[104] and post-war inflation led to food riots in Bombay, Madras, and Bengal provinces,[104] a situation that was made only worse by the failure of the 1918–19 monsoon and by profiteering and speculation.[103] The global influenza epidemic and the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917 added to the general jitters; the former among the population already experiencing economic woes,[104] and the latter among government officials, fearing a similar revolution in India.[105]

Consequently, in 1917, even as Edwin Montagu, announced the new constitutional reforms, a committee chaired by a British judge, Mr. S. A. T. Rowlatt, was tasked with investigating "revolutionary conspiracies", with the unstated goal of extending the government's war-time powers.[101] The Rowlatt committee presented its report in July 1918 and identified three regions of conspiratorial insurgency: Bengal, the Bombay presidency, and the Punjab.[101] To combat subversive acts in these regions, the committee recommended that the government use emergency powers akin to its war-time authority, which included the ability to try cases of sedition by a panel of three judges and without juries, exaction of securities from suspects, governmental overseeing of residences of suspects,[101] and the power for provincial governments to arrest and detain suspects in short-term detention facilities and without trial.[98]

Earlier, at the onset of World War I, the reassignment of most of the British army in India to Europe and Mesopotamia, had led the previous Viceroy, Lord Harding, to worry about the "risks involved in denuding India of troops."[92] Revolutionary violence had already been a concern in British India; consequently, in 1915, to strengthen its powers during what it saw was a time of increased vulnerability, the Government of India passed the Defence of India Act, which allowed it to intern politically dangerous dissidents without due process, and added to the power it already had – under the 1910 Press Act – both to imprison journalists without trial and to censor the press.[102] It was under the Defence of India act that the Ali brothers were imprisoned in 1916, and Annie Besant, a European woman, and ordinarily more problematic to imprison, in 1917.[102] Now, as constitutional reform began to be discussed in earnest, the British began to consider how new moderate Indians could be brought into the fold of constitutional politics and, simultaneously, how the hand of established constitutionalists could be strengthened. However, since the Government of India wanted to ensure against any sabotage of the reform process by extremists, and since its reform plan was devised during a time when extremist violence had ebbed as a result of increased governmental control, it also began to consider how some of its war-time powers could be extended into peace time.[102]

In 1916, in the face of new strength demonstrated by the nationalists with the signing of the Lucknow Pact and the founding of the Home Rule leagues, and the realisation, after the disaster in the Mesopotamian campaign, that the war would likely last longer, the new Viceroy, Lord Chelmsford, cautioned that the Government of India needed to be more responsive to Indian opinion.[101] Towards the end of the year, after discussions with the government in London, he suggested that the British demonstrate their good faith – in light of the Indian war role – through a number of public actions, including awards of titles and honours to princes, granting of commissions in the army to Indians, and removal of the much-reviled cotton excise duty, but, most importantly, an announcement of Britain's future plans for India and an indication of some concrete steps. After more discussion, in August 1917, the new Liberal Secretary of State for India, Edwin Montagu, announced the British aim of "increasing association of Indians in every branch of the administration, and the gradual development of self-governing institutions, with a view to the progressive realisation of responsible government in India as an integral part of the British Empire."[101] Although the plan envisioned limited self-government at first only in the provinces – with India emphatically within the British Empire – it represented the first British proposal for any form of representative government in a non-white colony.

Champaran, Kaira, and Ahmedabad were important milestones in the history of Gandhi's new methods of social protest in India. [100] Gandhi made his political debut in India in 1917 in

The Jallianwalla Bagh in 1919, a few months after the massacre which had occurred on 13 April
Headlines about the Rowlatt Bills (1919) from a nationalist newspaper in India. Although all non-official Indians on the Legislative Council voted against the Rowlatt Bills, the government was able to force their passage by using its majority.[98]
Edwin Montagu, left, the Secretary of State for India, whose report, led to the Government of India Act 1919, also known as the Montford Reforms or the Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms
Gandhi at the time of the Kheda Satyagraha, 1918

1917–1919: Satyagraha, Montagu-Chelmsford reforms, Jallianwalla Bagh

Also, during his time in South Africa, in his essay, Hind Swaraj, (1909), Gandhi formulated his vision of Swaraj, or "self-rule" for India based on three vital ingredients: solidarity between Indians of different faiths, but most of all between Hindus and Muslims; the removal of untouchability from Indian society; and the exercise of swadeshi – the boycott of manufactured foreign goods and the revival of Indian cottage industry.[96] The first two, he felt, were essential for India to be an egalitarian and tolerant society, one befitting the principles of Truth and Ahimsa, while the last, by making Indians more self-reliant, would break the cycle of dependence that was not only perpetrating the direction and tenor of the British rule in India, but also the British commitment to it.[96] At least until 1920, the British presence itself, was not a stumbling block in Gandhi's conception of swaraj; rather, it was the inability of Indians to create a modern society.[96]

The year 1915 also saw the return of Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi to India. Already known in India as a result of his civil liberties protests on behalf of the Indians in South Africa, Gandhi followed the advice of his mentor Gopal Krishna Gokhale and chose not to make any public pronouncements during the first year of his return, but instead spent the year travelling, observing the country first-hand, and writing.[96] Earlier, during his South Africa sojourn, Gandhi, a lawyer by profession, had represented an Indian community, which, although small, was sufficiently diverse to be a microcosm of India itself. In tackling the challenge of holding this community together and simultaneously confronting the colonial authority, he had created a technique of non-violent resistance, which he labelled Satyagraha (or, Striving for Truth).[97] For Gandhi, Satyagraha was different from "passive resistance", by then a familiar technique of social protest, which he regarded as a practical strategy adopted by the weak in the face of superior force; Satyagraha, on the other hand, was for him the "last resort of those strong enough in their commitment to truth to undergo suffering in its cause."[97] Ahimsa or "non-violence", which formed the underpinning of Satyagraha, came to represent the twin pillar, with Truth, of Gandhi's unorthodox religious outlook on life.[97] During the years 1907–1914, Gandhi tested the technique of Satyagraha in a number of protests on behalf of the Indian community in South Africa against the unjust racial laws.[97]

[95] During 1916, two

The 1916 Lucknow Session of the Congress was also the venue of an unanticipated mutual effort by the Congress and the Muslim League, the occasion for which was provided by the wartime partnership between Germany and Turkey. Since the Turkish Sultan, or Khalifah, had also sporadically claimed guardianship of the Islamic holy sites of Mecca, Medina, and Jerusalem, and since the British and their allies were now in conflict with Turkey, doubts began to increase among some Indian Muslims about the "religious neutrality" of the British, doubts that had already surfaced as a result of the reunification of Bengal in 1911, a decision that was seen as ill-disposed to Muslims.[94] In the Lucknow Pact, the League joined the Congress in the proposal for greater self-government that was campaigned for by Tilak and his supporters; in return, the Congress accepted separate electorates for Muslims in the provincial legislatures as well as the Imperial Legislative Council. In 1916, the Muslim League had anywhere between 500 and 800 members and did not yet have its wider following among Indian Muslims of later years; in the League itself, the pact did not have unanimous backing, having largely been negotiated by a group of "Young Party" Muslims from the United Provinces (UP), most prominently, two brothers Mohammad and Shaukat Ali, who had embraced the Pan-Islamic cause;[94] however, it did have the support of a young lawyer from Bombay, Muhammad Ali Jinnah, who was later to rise to leadership roles in both the League and the Indian independence movement. In later years, as the full ramifications of the pact unfolded, it was seen as benefiting the Muslim minority élites of provinces like UP and Bihar more than the Muslim majorities of Punjab and Bengal, nonetheless, at the time, the "Lucknow Pact", was an important milestone in nationalistic agitation and was seen so by the British.[94]

After the 1906 split between the moderates and the extremists, organised political activity by the Congress had remained fragmented until 1914, when Bal Gangadhar Tilak was released from prison and began to sound out other Congress leaders about possible re-unification. That, however, had to wait until the demise of Tilak's principal moderate opponents, Gopal Krishna Gokhale and Pherozeshah Mehta, in 1915, whereupon an agreement was reached for Tilak's ousted group to re-enter the Congress.[92] In the 1916 Lucknow session of the Congress, Tilak's supporters were able to push through a more radical resolution which asked for the British to declare that it was their, "aim and intention ... to confer self-government on India at an early date."[92] Soon, other such rumblings began to appear in public pronouncements: in 1917, in the Imperial Legislative Council, Madan Mohan Malaviya spoke of the expectations the war had generated in India, "I venture to say that the war has put the clock ... fifty years forward ... (The) reforms after the war will have to be such, ... as will satisfy the aspirations of her (India's) people to take their legitimate part in the administration of their own country."[92]

The First World War would prove to be a watershed in the imperial relationship between Britain and India. Shortly prior to the outbreak of war, the Government of India had indicated that they could furnish two divisions plus a cavalry brigade, with a further division in case of emergency.[91] Some 1.4 million Indian and British soldiers of the British Indian Army took part in the war, primarily in Iraq and the Middle East. Their participation had a wider cultural fallout as news spread how bravely soldiers fought and died alongside British soldiers, as well as soldiers from dominions like Canada and Australia.[92] India's international profile rose during the 1920s, as it became a founding member of the League of Nations in 1920 and participated, under the name, "Les Indes Anglaises" (British India), in the 1920 Summer Olympics in Antwerp.[93] Back in India, especially among the leaders of the Indian National Congress, the war led to calls for greater self-government for Indians.[92]

Indian medical orderlies attending to wounded soldiers with the Mesopotamian Expeditionary Force in Mesopotamia during World War I
Sepoy Khudadad Khan, the first Indian to be awarded the Victoria Cross, the British Empire's highest war-time medal for gallantry. Khan, from Chakwal District, Punjab (present-day Pakistan) was fighting on the Western Front in 1914. 
Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi (seated in carriage, on the right, eyes downcast, with black flat-top hat) receives a big welcome in Karachi in 1916 after his return to India from South Africa. 
Muhammad Ali Jinnah, seated, third from the left, was a supporter of the Lucknow Pact, which, in 1916, ended the three-way rift between the Extremists, the Moderates and the League. 

1914–1918: First World War, Lucknow Pact


The partition of Bengal was rescinded in 1911 and announced at the Delhi Durbar at which King Emperor of India. He announced the capital would be moved from Calcutta to Delhi, a Moslem stronghold. Morley was especially vigilant in crushing revolutionary groups.[90]

The Indian Councils Act 1909, known as the Morley-Minto Reforms (John Morley was the secretary of state for India, and Minto was viceroy) – gave Indians limited roles in the central and provincial legislatures. Upper class Indians, rich landowners and businessmen were favoured. The Muslim community was made a separate electorate and granted double representation. The goals were quite conservative but they did advance the elective principle.[89]

The first steps were taken toward self-government in British India in the late 19th century with the appointment of Indian counsellors to advise the British viceroy and the establishment of provincial councils with Indian members; the British subsequently widened participation in legislative councils with the Indian Councils Act of 1892. Municipal Corporations and District Boards were created for local administration; they included elected Indian members.

The Hindu protests against the partition of Bengal led the Muslim elite in India to organise in 1906 the All India Muslim League. The League favoured the partition of Bengal, since it gave them a Muslim majority in the eastern half. In 1905, when Tilak and Lajpat Rai attempted to rise to leadership positions in the Congress, and the Congress itself rallied around symbolism of Kali, Muslim fears increased. The Muslim elite, including Dacca Nawab and Khwaja Salimullah, expected that a new province with a Muslim majority would directly benefit Muslims aspiring to political power.[88]

1909 Prevailing Religions, Map of British India, 1909, showing the prevailing majority religions based on the Census of 1901. 
Hakim Ajmal Khan, a founder of the Muslim League, became the president of the Indian National Congress in 1921. 
Lord Minto, the Conservative viceroy met with the Muslim delegation in June 1906. The Minto-Morley Reforms of 1909 called for separate Muslim electorates. 

1906–1909: Muslim League, Minto-Morley reforms

The rallying cry for both types of protest was the slogan Bande Mataram ("Hail to the Mother"), which invoked a mother goddess, who stood variously for Bengal, India, and the Hindu goddess Kali. Sri Aurobindo never went beyond the law when he edited the Bande Mataram magazine; it preached independence but within the bounds of peace as far as possible. Its goal was Passive Resistance.[85] The unrest spread from Calcutta to the surrounding regions of Bengal when students returned home to their villages and towns. Some engaged in robbery to fund terrorist activities such as bombing public buildings, but the conspiracies generally failed in the face of intense police work.[86] The Swadeshi boycott movement cut imports of British textiles by 25%. The swadeshi cloth, although more expensive and somewhat less comfortable than its Lancashire competitor, was worn as a mark of national pride by people all over India.[87]

The large Bengali Hindu middle-class (the Bhadralok), upset at the prospect of Bengalis being outnumbered in the new Bengal province by Biharis and Oriyas, felt that Curzon's act was punishment for their political assertiveness. The pervasive protests against Curzon's decision took the form predominantly of the Swadeshi ("buy Indian") campaign led by two-time Congress president, Surendranath Banerjee, and involved boycott of British goods.[84]

Trouble emerged for Curzon when he divided the largest administrative subdivision in British India, the Bengal Presidency, into the Muslim-majority province of East Bengal and Assam and the Hindu-majority province of West Bengal (present-day Indian states of West Bengal, Bihār, and Orissa). Curzon's act, the Partition of Bengal—which some considered administratively felicitous, communally charged, sowed the seeds of division among Indians in Bengal and, which had been contemplated by various colonial administrations since the time of Lord William Bentinck, but never acted upon—was to transform nationalist politics as nothing else before it. The Hindu elite of Bengal, among them many who owned land in East Bengal that was leased out to Muslim peasants, protested fervidly.[83]

The then Viceroy, Lord Curzon (1899–1905) was unusually energetic in pursuit of efficiency and reform.[81] His agenda included the creation of the North-West Frontier Province; small changes in the Civil Service; speeding up the operations of the secretariat; setting up a gold standard to ensure a stable currency; creation of a Railway Board; irrigation reform; reduction of peasant debts; lowering the cost of telegrams; archaeological research and the preservation of antiquities; improvements in the universities; police reforms; upgrading the roles of the Native States; a new Commerce and Industry Department; promotion of industry; revised land revenue policies; lowering taxes; setting up agricultural banks; creating an Agricultural Department; sponsoring agricultural research; establishing an Imperial Library; creating an Imperial Cadet Corps; new famine codes; and, indeed, reducing the smoke nuisance in Calcutta.[82]

Viceroy Curzon (1899–1905). He promoted many reforms but his partitioning of Bengal into Muslim and Hindu provinces outraged Hindus. 
Surendranath Banerjee, a Congress moderate, who led the opposition to the partition of Bengal with the Swadeshi movement to buy Indian-made cloth. 
Cover of a 1909 issue of the Tamil magazine Vijaya showing "Mother India" with her diverse progeny and the rallying cry "Vande Mataram". 

Partition of Bengal (1905–1911)

By 1905, a deep gulf opened between the moderates, led by Gokhale, who downplayed public agitation, and the new "extremists" who not only advocated agitation, but also regarded the pursuit of social reform as a distraction from nationalism. Prominent among the extremists was Bal Gangadhar Tilak, who attempted to mobilise Indians by appealing to an explicitly Hindu political identity, displayed, for example, in the annual public Ganapati festivals that he inaugurated in western India.[80]

Social reform was in the air by the 1880s. For example, Pandita Ramabai, poet, Sanskrit scholar, and a champion of the emancipation of Indian women, took up the cause of widow remarriage, especially of Brahamin widows, later converted to Christianity.[78] By 1900 reform movements had taken root within the Indian National Congress. Congress member Gopal Krishna Gokhale founded the Servants of India Society, which lobbied for legislative reform (for example, for a law to permit the remarriage of Hindu child widows), and whose members took vows of poverty, and worked among the untouchable community.[79]

Gopal Krishna Gokhale, a constitutional social reformer and moderate nationalist, was elected president of the Indian National Congress in 1905.. 
Congress "extremist" Bal Gangadhar Tilak speaking in 1907 as the party split into the Moderates and the Extremists. Seated at the table is Aurobindo Ghosh and to his right (in the chair) is Lala Lajpat Rai, both allies of Tilak. 

Thomas Baring was appointed by Prime Minister William E. Gladstone as Viceroy of India 1872-1876. Baring's major accomplishments came as an energetic reformer who was dedicated to upgrading the quality of government in the British Raj. He began large scale famine relief, reduced taxes, and overcame bureaucratic obstacles in an effort to reduce both starvation and widespread social unrest. [77]

1870s–1907: Social reformers, moderates vs. extremists

During its first twenty years, the Congress primarily debated British policy toward India; however, its debates created a new Indian outlook that held Great Britain responsible for draining India of its wealth. Britain did this, the nationalists claimed, by unfair trade, by the restraint on indigenous Indian industry, and by the use of Indian taxes to pay the high salaries of the British civil servants in India.[76]

It was, however, Viceroy Lord Ripon's partial reversal of the Ilbert Bill (1883), a legislative measure that had proposed putting Indian judges in the Bengal Presidency on equal footing with British ones, that transformed the discontent into political action.[74] On 28 December 1885, professionals and intellectuals from this middle-class—many educated at the new British-founded universities in Bombay, Calcutta, and Madras, and familiar with the ideas of British political philosophers, especially the utilitarians assembled in Bombay. The seventy men founded the Indian National Congress; Womesh Chandra Bonerjee was elected the first president. The membership comprised a westernised elite, and no effort was made at this time to broaden the base.

By 1880, a new middle class had arisen in India and spread thinly across the country.[73] Moreover, there was a growing solidarity among its members, created by the "joint stimuli of encouragement and irritation."[73] The encouragement felt by this class came from its success in education and its ability to avail itself of the benefits of that education such as employment in the Indian Civil Service.[74] It came too from Queen Victoria's proclamation of 1858 in which she had declared, "We hold ourselves bound to the natives of our Indian territories by the same obligation of duty which bind us to all our other subjects."[75] Indians were especially encouraged when Canada was granted dominion status in 1867 and established an autonomous democratic constitution.[75] Lastly, the encouragement came from the work of contemporaneous Oriental scholars like Monier Monier-Williams and Max Müller, who in their works had been presenting ancient India as a great civilisation.[73] Irritation, on the other hand, came not just from incidents of racial discrimination at the hands of the British in India, but also from governmental actions like the use of Indian troops in imperial campaigns (e.g. in the Second Anglo-Afghan War) and the attempts to control the vernacular press (e.g. in the Vernacular Press Act of 1878).[73]

1860s–1890s: New middle class, Indian National Congress

Taxes in India decreased during the colonial period for most of India's population; with the land tax revenue claiming 15% of India's national income during Mogul times compared with 1% at the end of the colonial period. The percentage of national income for the village economy increased from 44% during Mogul times to 54% by the end of colonial period. India's per capita GDP decreased from $550 in 1700 to $520 by 1857, although it later increased to $618, by 1947.[72]

In the second half of the 19th century, both the direct administration of India by the British Crown and the technological change ushered in by the industrial revolution had the effect of closely intertwining the economies of India and Great Britain.[67] In fact many of the major changes in transport and communications (that are typically associated with Crown Rule of India) had already begun before the Mutiny. Since Dalhousie had embraced the technological revolution underway in Britain, India too saw rapid development of all those technologies. Railways, roads, canals, and bridges were rapidly built in India and telegraph links equally rapidly established in order that raw materials, such as cotton, from India's hinterland could be transported more efficiently to ports, such as Bombay, for subsequent export to England.[68] Likewise, finished goods from England, were transported back, just as efficiently, for sale in the burgeoning Indian markets. Massive railway projects were begun in earnest and government railway jobs and pensions attracted a large number of upper caste Hindus into the civil service for the first time. The Indian Civil Service was prestigious and paid well, but it remained politically neutral.[69] Imports of British cotton covered 55% of the Indian market by 1875.[70] Industrial production as it developed in European factories was unknown until the 1850s when the first cotton mills were opened in Bombay, posing a challenge to the cottage-based home production system based on family labour.[71]


India provides an example of the British Empire pouring its money and expertise into a very well built system designed for military reasons (after the Mutiny of 1857), with the hope that it would stimulate industry. The system was overbuilt and too expensive for the small amount of freight traffic it carried. However, it did capture the imagination of the Indians, who saw their railways as the symbol of an industrial modernity—but one that was not realised until after Independence. Christensen (1996), who looked at colonial purpose, local needs, capital, service, and private-versus-public interests, concluded that making the railways a creature of the state hindered success because railway expenses had to go through the same time-consuming and political budgeting process as did all other state expenses. Railway costs could therefore not be tailored to the timely needs of the railways or their passengers.[66]

The Second World War severely crippled the railways as rolling stock was diverted to the Middle East, and the railway workshops were converted into munitions workshops.[65] After independence in 1947, forty-two separate railway systems, including thirty-two lines owned by the former Indian princely states, were amalgamated to form a single nationalised unit named the Indian Railways.

Headrick shows that until the 1930s, both the Raj lines and the private companies hired only European supervisors, civil engineers, and even operating personnel, such as locomotive engineers. The government's Stores Policy required that bids on railway contracts be made to the India Office in London, shutting out most Indian firms.[63] The railway companies purchased most of their hardware and parts in Britain. There were railway maintenance workshops in India, but they were rarely allowed to manufacture or repair locomotives. TISCO steel could not obtain orders for rails until the war emergency.[64]

Most of the railway construction was done by Indian companies supervised by British engineers.[60] The system was heavily built, using a wide gauge, sturdy tracks and strong bridges. By 1900 India had a full range of rail services with diverse ownership and management, operating on broad, metre and narrow gauge networks. In 1900, the government took over the GIPR network, while the company continued to manage it.[60] During the First World War, the railways were used to transport troops and grains to the ports of Bombay and Karachi en route to Britain, Mesopotamia, and East Africa. With shipments of equipment and parts from Britain curtailed, maintenance became much more difficult; critical workers entered the army; workshops were converted to making artillery; some locomotives and cars were shipped to the Middle East. The railways could barely keep up with the increased demand.[61] By the end of the war, the railways had deteriorated for lack of maintenance and were not profitable. In 1923, both GIPR and EIR were nationalised.[62][63]

In 1854, Governor-General Lord Dalhousie formulated a plan to construct a network of trunk lines connecting the principal regions of India. Encouraged by the government guarantees, investment flowed in and a series of new rail companies were established, leading to rapid expansion of the rail system in India.[58] Soon several large princely states built their own rail systems and the network spread to the regions that became the modern-day states of Assam, Rajasthan and Andhra Pradesh. The route mileage of this network increased from 1,349 kilometres (838 mi) in 1860 to 25,495 kilometres (15,842 mi) in 1880, mostly radiating inland from the three major port cities of Bombay, Madras, and Calcutta.[59]

Two new railway companies, Great Indian Peninsular Railway (GIPR) and East Indian Railway (EIR) began in 1853–54 to construct and operate lines near Bombay and Calcutta. The first passenger railway line in North India between Allahabad and Kanpur opened in 1859.

The East India Company (and later the colonial government) encouraged new railway companies backed by private investors under a scheme that would provide land and guarantee an annual return of up to five percent during the initial years of operation. The companies were to build and operate the lines under a 99-year lease, with the government having the option to buy them earlier.[57]

India built a modern railway system in the late 19th century which was the fourth largest in the world. The railways at first were privately owned and operated. It was run by British administrators, engineers and craftsmen. At first, only the unskilled workers were Indians.[56]

"The most magnificent railway station in the world." says the caption of the stereographic tourist picture of Victoria Terminus, Bombay, which was completed in 1888.
The railway network in 1909, when it was the fourth largest railway network in the world.
Extent of Great Indian Peninsular Railway network in 1870. The GIPR was one of the largest rail companies at that time.


In the 1890s, he launched plans to move into heavy industry using Indian funding. The Raj did not provide capital, but, aware of Britain's declining position against the US and Germany in the steel industry, it wanted steel mills in India. It promised to purchase any surplus steel Tata could not otherwise sell.[52] The Tata Iron and Steel Company (TISCO), now headed by his son Dorabji Tata (1859–1932), opened its plant at Jamshedpur in Bihar in 1908. It used American technology, not British[53] and became the leading iron and steel producer in India, with 120,000 employees in 1945. TISCO became India's proud symbol of technical skill, managerial competence, entrepreneurial flair, and high pay for industrial workers.[54] The Tata family, like most of India's big businessmen, were Indian nationalists but did not trust the Congress because it seemed too aggressively hostile to the Raj, too socialist, and too supportive of trade unions.[55]

The entrepreneur Jamsetji Tata (1839–1904) began his industrial career in 1877 with the Central India Spinning, Weaving, and Manufacturing Company in Bombay. While other Indian mills produced cheap coarse yarn (and later cloth) using local short-staple cotton and cheap machinery imported from Britain, Tata did much better by importing expensive longer-stapled cotton from Egypt and buying more complex ring-spindle machinery from the United States to spin finer yarn that could compete with imports from Britain.[51]


The Indian economy grew at about 1% per year from 1880 to 1920, and the population also grew at 1%.[47] The result was, on average, no long-term change in per capita income levels, though cost of living had grown higher. Agriculture was still dominant, with most peasants at the subsistence level. Extensive irrigation systems were built, providing an impetus for switching to cash crops for export and for raw materials for Indian industry, especially jute, cotton, sugarcane, coffee and tea.[48] India's global share of GDP fell drastically from above 20% to less than 5% in the colonial period.[49] Historians have been bitterly divided on issues of economic history, with the Nationalist school (following Nehru) arguing that India was poorer at the end of British rule than at the beginning and that impoverishment occurred because of the British.[50]

Economic history

During the time of the East India Company, Thomas Babington Macaulay had made schooling a priority for the Raj in his famous minute of February 1835 and succeeded in implementing ideas previously put forward by Lord William Bentinck (the governor general between 1828 and 1835). Bentinck favoured the replacement of Persian by English as the official language, the use of English as the medium of instruction, and the training of English-speaking Indians as teachers. He was inspired by utilitarian ideas and called for "useful learning." However, Bentinck's proposals were rejected by London officials.[43][44] Under Macaulay, thousands of elementary and secondary schools were opened though they usually had an all-male student body. Universities in Calcutta, Bombay, and Madras were established in 1857, just before the Rebellion. By 1890 some 60,000 Indians had matriculated, chiefly in the liberal arts or law. About a third entered public administration, and another third became lawyers. The result was a very well educated professional state bureaucracy. By 1887 of 21,000 mid-level civil service appointments, 45% were held by Hindus, 7% by Muslims, 19% by Eurasians (European father and Indian mother), and 29% by Europeans. Of the 1000 top-level positions, almost all were held by Britons, typically with an Oxbridge degree.[45] The government, often working with local philanthropists, opened 186 universities and colleges of higher education by 1911; they enrolled 36,000 students (over 90% men). By 1939 the number of institutions had doubled and enrolment reached 145,000. The curriculum followed classical British standards of the sort set by Oxford and Cambridge and stressed English literature and European history. Nevertheless by the 1920s the student bodies had become hotbeds of Indian nationalism.[46]


Increasingly officials discovered that traditions and customs in India were too strong and too rigid to be changed easily. There were few new social interventions, especially not in matters dealing with religion, even when the British felt very strongly about the issue (as in the instance of the remarriage of Hindu child widows).[38] Indeed, Murshid argues that women were in some ways more restricted by the modernisation of the laws. They remained tied to the strictures of their religion, caste, and customs, but now with an overlay of British Victorian attitudes. Their inheritance rights to own and manage property were curtailed; the new English laws were somewhat harsher. Court rulings restricted the rights of second wives and their children regarding inheritance. A woman had to belong to either a father or a husband to have any rights.[42]

Singha argues that after 1857 the colonial government strengthened and expanded its infrastructure via the court system, legal procedures, and statutes. New legislation merged the Crown and the old East India Company courts and introduced a new penal code as well as new codes of civil and criminal procedure, based largely on English law. In the 1860s–1880s the Raj set up compulsory registration of births, deaths, and marriages, as well as adoptions, property deeds, and wills. The goal was to create a stable, usable public record and verifiable identities. However there was opposition from both Muslim and Hindu elements who complained that the new procedures for census-taking and registration threatened to uncover female privacy. Purdah rules prohibited women from saying their husband's name or having their photograph taken. An all-India census was conducted between 1868 and 1871, often using total numbers of females in a household rather than individual names. Select groups which the Raj reformers wanted to monitor statistically included those reputed to practice female infanticide, prostitutes, lepers, and eunuchs.[41]

Legal modernisation

Lastly, the British felt disenchanted with Indian reaction to social change. Until the rebellion, they had enthusiastically pushed through social reform, like the ban on suttee by Lord William Bentinck.[37] It was now felt that traditions and customs in India were too strong and too rigid to be changed easily; consequently, no more British social interventions were made, especially in matters dealing with religion, even when the British felt very strongly about the issue (as in the instance of the remarriage of Hindu child widows).[38]

It was also felt that both the princes and the large land-holders, by not joining the rebellion, had proved to be, in Lord Canning's words, "breakwaters in a storm".[37] They too were rewarded in the new British Raj by being officially recognised in the treaties each state now signed with the Crown.[38] At the same time, it was felt that the peasants, for whose benefit the large land-reforms of the United Provinces had been undertaken, had shown disloyalty, by, in many cases, fighting for their former landlords against the British. Consequently, no more land reforms were implemented for the next 90 years: Bengal and Bihar were to remain the realms of large land holdings (unlike the Punjab and Uttar Pradesh).[38]

[40] In 1880, the standing Indian Army consisted of 66,000 British soldiers, 130,000 Natives, and 350,000 soldiers in the princely armies.[39] The 1861 Census had revealed that the English population in India was 125,945. Of these only about 41,862 were civilians as compared with about 84,083 European officers and men of the Army.[38]