By Ammar Husain [Edited by Frank Oddy and Tayyiba Nasir]
The term “attitudes” is a very broad category measurable in numerous ways. During the pre and post ‘mutiny’ era, it can be deduced that there were many different attitudes displayed by the British towards their empire. Most of these attitudes were negative and hostile, whereas others came across as positive and developmental. Through the analysis of the Indian ‘mutiny’, this essay will explore key British attitudes towards empire identified above, within and after the ‘mutiny’. The key attitudes in order of significance are entrepreneurial and possessive and attitudes of religious, racial and cultural superiority. This is in contrast with a more conscious attitude geared towards social development. The entrepreneurial attitude displayed is the most significant, as it was key to keeping the balance of power in Britain’s favour and was also a root cause of the ‘mutiny’, whereas religious superiority was simply the last straw. Whilst Chris Bayly has argued that “the expansion of cash cropping […] set the scene for conflict,”[1] William Dalrymple, argues that this was a “war of religion”, that religious insensitivity would be most valuable in providing insight into British attitudes to empire. This essay, however, will argue that Britain’s agenda of enrichment was key to unravelling attitudes to empire.[2]
The outbreak of the ‘mutiny’ highlights that British attitudes to empire were primarily motivated by material gain. Their attitudes were entrepreneurial and egoistical, of which came a possessive attitude due to the revenue that India was generating for Britain. Chris Bayly underlines that this was also a key cause for the outbreak of the ‘mutiny’, “the expansion of cash cropping in the early nineteenth century set the scene for conflict.”[3] The fact that cash cropping was so expansive meant there was little for Indian people to eat as they lacked subsistence crops that were used for food; combining this with the system of ‘mercantilism’, whereby colonies would send most of their produce to Britain and buy British manufactured goods. This meant that there was a lack of staple food, leading to inflation and poverty because Indians were forced to buy the expensive British-made goods; the outcome of which was damaging to home industry, but also the cause of numerous famines. Niall Ferguson substantiates this claim highlighting that “the immediate impact of British imperial free-trading was the collapse of local indigenous industries, livelihoods and communities.”[4] This highlights that Britain was so obsessed with enriching themselves that they developed an incredibly insensitive attitude. Profit came at the cost of Indian lives and this seemed perfectly acceptable. AS Jan Morris remarks, “the deepest impulse for empire was the impulse to be rich.”[5] The idea of enrichment is substantiated by the fact that post-‘mutiny’, Britain compel India to compensate for the costs of supressing the ‘mutiny’. The following increases in British imports to India best illustrates this. In 1854 the value of tea import was £24,000 and wheat £0. Post mutiny, the value of tea increased to £2,429,000 and wheat to £1,647,000.[6] India was effectively Britain’s commodity supplier and they had a strong desire to protect this investment, evident not only by their costly suppression, but also by the defence of India post ‘mutiny’. British troops had numbered fewer than 40,000, however this was then increased to a 1:2 ratio of British to Indian troops and by the late 1880s there were 70,000 British to 125,000 natives.[7] To further their grip over the subcontinent they also laid a considerable amount of track, referred to as ‘railway imperialism’. Though this was presented as a gift to the Indian people, its installation ensured the quick dispatch of troops to troubled areas and furthered their entrepreneurial agenda. As Peter Mathias highlights “railway building was instrumental […] developing export sectors in primary produce for Britain”.[8] This shows that even when Britain was supposedly helping the natives, they were only furthering their own self-seeking agenda, as railways provided the link from rural areas to the port for export and provided a form of ‘invisible trade’. As Shashi Tharoor points out, “British shareholders made absurd amounts of money by investing in railways”.[9] This shows the clear existence of Britain’s entrepreneurial attitude, which came with a possessive attitude fuelled by a strong desire for material gain. One view holds that the British had a ‘selfless’ attitude towards its colonies, and they were simply ‘developing’ India as custodians of the world, a view reinforced by the “white man’s burden”. [10] This eludes to Britain’s paternalistic attitude towards empire. Paternalism is reinforced in the accounts of officers in India detailed by Carter and Bates, the account of Alfred Lyall demonstrates deep regret. Lyall mentions “I am always rather sorry to see them killed”, in reference to the Hindus, the resentment of heavy handed action is evident from this and denotes a desire to help Indians develop India.[11] Overall, the explosion of unrest in 1857 was not due to the British ‘compassionate’ or ‘paternalistic’ attitude, rather it was the continuation of their self-seeking entrepreneurial agenda. The ‘mutiny’ also highlights that the British held attitudes of religious, racial and cultural superiority. All of which were condescending and degrading in their nature towards Indians. The Enfield rifle outrage is often understood to be the cause of the ‘mutiny’. It was reported that the cartridge of this new rifle would be greased with cow and pig fat and to load the rifle, sepoys would have bite off the end of the cartridge, thus having oral contact. This offended the religious sensibilities of both Hindus and Muslims. Hindus see the cow as holy and Muslims believe the pig to be impure. Understandably, this enraged Indian people and the British faced widespread opposition. Moreover, the fact that during this time people from Britain would be preaching to the ‘heathens’, in this case all Indian people, suggests belief of religious superiority. The presence of these preachers is confirmed by Jackson who states that the British believed there were “souls to be saved”.[12] The British also offended Hinduism through the banning of ‘sati’ which was the practice of widowed women self-immolating. This was seen as uncivilised by the western eye, however Hinduism asserted that this showed the piety and devotion of the wife to the husband. This again provoked fears of religious erosion, leading to the creation of social unrest which manifested in 1857. Racially we see a similar story, whereby race was deterministic in social hierarchy. The administration of India pre and post ‘mutiny’ exhibits this. Under the administration of the British East India Company in 1839 “rations were taken from Indian regiments in favour of British troops” and Indians would get less food than their British superiors. Havelock mentions also that “native troops received only half, rather than a full seer of ottah”.[13] This blatant racial discrimination also continued post ‘mutiny’, under the rule of the crown. Running the Raj required a vast staff and it was “maintained by around a thousand British civil servants, employed as members of the Indian civil service” and “senior civil servants were virtually all white males” with “Bilingual Indians being recruited as low level clerks”, despite being just as educated as their British superiors and part of the upper class occupied low level positions undesirable to the British.[14] This highlights a clear social hierarchy, on the basis of race. The exertion of Britain’s superiority complex over the natives did not end here. The legal system implemented within India also further demonstrates the existence of this. It was the British legal system that was favoured over the existing Indian one, where the latter was abolished. The East India Company courts were merged with crown courts and English law prevailed. This show of disregard for the natives’ preference perpetuates this idea of everything British being naturally superior, denoting a clear attitude of cultural superiority. It is important to note that the Enfield rifle cartridge incident was a rumour and arguably the abolition of Sati was in the best interests of a progressive society. Likewise, the implementation of the British legal system is arguably a pragmatic approach that is not overlooking the preferences of natives, but ensuring they benefit from a successful working method. Overall, it is clear that the British held attitudes of religious, racial and cultural superiority. The ‘mutiny’ is also useful in highlighting that not all British attitudes were ‘negative’. Post ‘mutiny’ saw a shift in British attitudes - attitudes that were more native conscious. This was reflected in key social developments during this time. Education was a case in point. The British extended education with universities being established in Bombay, Madras and Calcutta in 1857 and, in the thirty years following the creation of these institutions, 60,000 Indians entered the universities. Of the 1712 Calcutta graduates, over a third entered government service. By 1882, graduates of the three universities accounted for 1100 appointments to government service.[15] There were also British social reformers who were campaigning for developments within Indian society. Mary Carpenter focused her efforts on developments for women, making frequent visits to India she oversaw the establishments of corps of British teachers for India, as well as girls schools in Bombay and Ahmedabad, and a college to train female Indian teachers.[16] This highlights that post ‘mutiny’ the British demonstrated a more compassionate attitude towards colonial people. Overall, the evidence presented leads me to the conclusion that British attitudes to empire were primarily entrepreneurial. Their self-seeking agenda was most consistent, pre, during, and post ‘mutiny’. The primary aim of empire was “the impulse to be rich” and this motivated other attitudes of racial, religious and cultural superiority.[17] These were a necessity in ensuring the retention of their commodity. An attitude of racial and cultural superiority ensured dominance within Indian society, for instance, at governmental level. This allowed them to effectively rule India post ‘mutiny’, the spread of religion to the ‘heathens’ allowed for conversions, thus support for Christianity and ultimately Britain. Though there were positive attitudes, this was also necessary to ensure Britain’s hold over India. They had granting of concessions which gave Indians the illusion of a progressive society. This attitude of furthering material gain determined the action taken against anything or anyone that threatened this agenda. Britain may have been the largest empire, but its attitudes were definitely inglorious.[18] Notes [1] Chris Bayly, Indian Society and the Making of the British Empire (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988), p. 184. [2] William Dalrymple (2006), “Indian Mutiny Was ‘War of Religion”, BBC News, <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/5312092.stm.> [Accessed 15 December 2019]. [3] Chris Bayly, Indian Society and the Making of the British Empire (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988), p. 184. [4] Ashley Jackson, The British Empire: A Very Short Introduction (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013), p. 127. [5] Jan Morris, Pax Britannica, the Climax of an Empire (London: Faber and Faber, 2003), p. 100. [6] Robert J Carr et al., The British Empire 1857-1967 (Oxford: Oxford University press, 2016), p. 26. [7] Carr et al, The British Empire 1857-1967, p.16. [8] Peter Mathias, The First Industrial Nation (London: Routledge, 2001), p. 301. [9] Shashi Tharoor, Inglorious Empire (London: Hurst, 2017). [10] “‘The White Man’s Burden’: Kipling’s Hymn to U. S. Imperialism”, History Matters < http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/5478/> [Accessed 15 December 2019]. [11] Crispin Bates & Marina Carter, “Religion and Retribution in the Indian Rebellion of 1857”, Leidschrift, 24/1 (2009), p. 68. [12]Jackson, From the British Empire, p. 52. [13] Henry Havelock, Narrative of the War in Afghanistan in 1838-39 (Whitefish Montana: Kessinger Publishing, 2008), p. 254; Carr et al, The British Empire 1857-1967, p. 14. [14] Carr et al, The British Empire 1857-1967, p. 14; p. 53. [15] Carr et al, The British Empire 1857-1967, p. 53. [16] Carr et al, The British Empire 1857-1967, p. 53. [17] Jan Morris, Pax Britannica, the climax of an Empire (London: Faber and Faber, 2003), p. 100. [18] Shashi Tharoor, Inglorious Empire (London: Hurst, 2017).
Bibliography
Bates, Crispin and Carter, Marina. “Religion and Retribution in the Indian rebellion of 1857”. Leidschrift. 24/1, 2009
Bayly, Chris. Indian Society and the Making of the British Empire. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988
Carr, Robert J (et al). The British Empire 1857-1967. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016
Dalrymple,William. ‘Indian mutiny Was War of Religion’, BBC News, 2006 <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/5312092.stm> [Accessed: 15 December 2019]
Havelock, Henry. Narrative of the War in Afghanistan in 1838-39 Volume II. Whitefish, Montana: Kessinger, 2008
Husain, Farrukh. Afghanistan in the Age of Empires. London: Silk Road Books and Photos, 2017
Jackson, Ashley. The British Empire: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013
Morris, Jan. Pax Britannica, the Climax of an Empire. London: Faber and Faber, 2003
Mathias, Peter. The First Industrial Nation. London: Routledge, 2001
Tharoor, Shashi. Inglorious Empire. London: Hurst, 2017
“‘The White Man’s Burden’: Kipling’s Hymn to U. S. Imperialism”, History Matters <http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/5478/> [Accessed 15 December 2019]