British Raj

This article has been nominated to be checked for its neutrality. Discussion of this nomination can be found on the talk page. (February 2008)

This article or section is in the middle of an expansion or major revamping. However, you are welcome to assist in its construction by editing it as well. Please view the edit history should you wish to contact the person who placed this template. If this article has not been edited in several days please remove this template. Consider not tagging with a deletion tag unless the page hasn't been edited in several days. While actively editing, consider adding {{inuse}} to reduce edit conflicts.

British Raj Indian Empire British colony ←   ← 1858 – 1947 →   → Image:British Raj Red Ensign.svg Image:Star-of-India-gold-centre.svg Flag Coat of arms Anthem God Save The King-Emperor Image:IGI british indian empire1909reduced.jpg The British Indian Empire, 1909 Capital Calcutta (1858 - 1912) New Delhi (1912 - 1947) Language(s) Hindustani, English and many others Government Monarchy Emperor of India  - 1858-1901 Victoria¹  - 1901-1910 Edward VII  - 1910-1936 George V  - 1936 Edward VIII  - 1936-1947 George VI Viceroy²  - 1858-1862 The Viscount Canning  - 1947 The Viscount Mountbatten of Burma Historical era New Imperialism  - Established August 2, 1858  - Disestablished August 15, 1947 Currency British Indian rupee ¹ Reigned as Empress of India from May 1, 1876, before that as Queen of the United Kingdom. ² Governor-General and Viceroy of India

For the British Colonial Empire, see British Empire.

For the Australian Band, see British India (band).

British Raj (rāj, lit. "reign" in Hindi) or British India, officially the Indian Empire, and internationally and contemporaneously, India, is the term used synonymously for the region^{[citation needed]}, the rule, and the period, from 1858 to 1947, of the British Empire on the Indian subcontinent. The region included areas directly administered by the United Kingdom^[1] (contemporaneously, "British India") as well as the princely states ruled by individual rulers under the paramountcy of the British Crown. The princely states, which had all entered into treaty arrangements with the British Crown, were allowed a degree of local autonomy in exchange for accepting protection and complete representation in international affairs by the United Kingdom.

The British Indian Empire included the regions of present-day India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh, and, in addition, at various times, Aden (from 1858 to 1937), 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 directly administered by the British Crown from 1937 until its independence in 1948. Among other countries in the region, Ceylon (now Sri Lanka), which was ceded to the United Kingdom in 1802 under the Treaty of Amiens, was a British Crown Colony, but not part of British India. The kingdoms of Nepal and Bhutan, both having fought wars with the British, had subsequently signed treaties with them which recognised them as independent states.^[2][3] 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.^[4] The Maldive Islands were a British protectorate from 1867 to 1965, but not part of British India.

The Indian Empire, which issued its own passports, was commonly referred to as India both in the region and internationally. As India, it was a founding member of the League of Nations, and a member nation of the Summer Olympics in 1900, 1920, 1928, 1932, and 1936.

The system of governance lasted from 1858, when the rule of the British East India Company was transferred to the Crown in the person of Queen Victoria (and who, in 1876, was proclaimed Empress of India), 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 and the People's Republic of Bangladesh).

Prelude

Main articles: Mughal Empire, Maratha Empire, Colonial India, and Company rule in India

Ever since the days of the Roman Empire, the balance of trade between Europe and India had always been in India's favour, with Europe exchanging much of its gold and silver for luxury goods, textile, and spices from India. The rule of British East India Company signified the reversal of this historic balance of trade (which remained in India's favour for the first 150 years of company operations) for the first time and heralded the beginning of an almost 250 year long British rule in India.

On 31 December 1600, Queen Elizabeth I of England granted a royal charter to the East India Company for carrying out trade with the East. In 1608, East India Company ships arrived in India and docked at port city of Surat, Gujarat. In 1612, British traders battled the Portuguese at the Battle of Swally, gaining the favour of the Mughal emperor Jahangir. In 1615, King James I sent Sir Thomas Roe as his ambassador to Emperor Jahangir's court, which lead to a treaty allowing East India Company "freedom answerable to their own desires; to sell, buy, and to transport into their country at their pleasure".^[5] Starting with the first factory, setup in 1612, in the city of Surat, the company gradually establish other trading posts or "factories" which initiated a process that would lead to the emergence of the modern day cities of Mumbai, Chennai, and Kolkata.

In 1670, King Charles II granted the company the right to acquire territory, raise an army, mint its own money, and exercise legal jurisdiction in areas under its control. Taking advantage of a declining Mughal Empire after Aurangzeb's death in 1707 and warring provinces, the East India Company started to extend areas under its control.

In 1757, Mir Jafar, the ambitious commander in chief of the army of Siraj Ud Daulah, the Nawab of Bengal, secretly connived with the British asking for support to overthrow the Nawab in return for trade grants. At the Battle of Plassey, Mir Jafar's forces betrayed the Nawab allowing the relatively small British force commanded by Robert Clive to win the battle. Jafar was installed on the throne of Bengal which became a British protectorate. Clive gained access to Bengal's treasury and netted £2.5m for the company and £234,000 for himself.^[6] At the time, an average British nobleman could live a life of luxury on an annual income of £800.^[7]. The battle transformed British perspective as they realised their strength and potential to conquer smaller Indian kingdoms, and marked the beginning of the imperial or colonial era.

India at the time of Clive, 1760

A double system of government was then established in Bengal with administration, revenue collection, and justice under the nominal Nawab and the power to write bills against the treasury distributed among various company officials. This lead to a great deal of corruption enriching many in the company.^[8] An unrequited trade involving use of India's own resources to fund exports to Britain was also created leading to a huge siphoning of wealth to Britain while impoverishing Bengal. Within a few years, India's historic positive balance of trade with Europe was gone.^[9]

After defeating Shah Alam II in Battle of Buxar (1764), the East India Company obtained right to collect taxes over much of eastern India (the regions currently occupied by Indian states of Bihar, Jharkhand, Orissa, and West Bengal along with the country of Bangladesh). In exchange, Shah Alam got an annual tribute of £300,000 and administrative rights over Allahabad and Kora. East India Company now administered a region with a population of 25 million and an annual revenue that was half of England's.^[10]

Within the next five years, revenues from land tax tripled leading to many farmers paying 2/3rd of their produce as tax - an unprecedented amount both by historical and modern standards. This tax was transferred to Britain in form of dividends to shareholders of East India Company and through unrequited trade. Unlike under the Mughals, when farmers were unable to pay taxes as a result of crop failure, their lands were auctioned off.

In early 1769, disregarding all warnings of an approaching drought,^[12] the East India Company continued strict land tax enforcement, increasing land taxes in April 1770, and prevented hoarding of food grains by merchants anticipating higher prices during drought. Famines, as a result of fluctuating monsoon rains were not new to India; however, as a result of these policies and corrupt governance, what was expected to be a drought turned into a severe famine killing an unprecedented 10 million people (1/3rd of Bengal's population at the time) within a period of six months. Strict enforcement of land tax continued. In the year immediately following the famine, tax revenues collected by British East India Company increased as compared to the year immediately preceding the famine.^[13]

In 1773, the British Parliament granted regulatory control over East India Company to the British government and established the post of Governor-General of India.^[14] Warren Hastings was appointed as the first Governor General of India. Later, in 1774, the British Parliament passed the Pitt's India Act which created a Board of Control overseeing the administration of East India Company.^[15] During the proceedings of Pitt's India Act, Edmund Burke was the lone parliamentarian who brought attention to what he perceived to be British East India Company misrule in India.^[16]

Hastings, under pressure of East India Company directors to return profits, started to reorganise company operations. ^[18] He moved the administrative offices from Murshidabad to Calcutta, halved the stipend of titular Nawab of Bengal to £160,000, withdrew the tribute of £300,000 to Shah Alam II, and resold Allahabad and Kora to Oudh.

Hastings remained in India until 1784 and was succeeded by Cornwallis, who initiated the Permanent Settlement, whereby an agreement in perpetuity was reached with zamindars or landlords for the collection of revenue. For the next fifty years, the British were engaged in attempts to eliminate Indian rivals.

Further acts, such as the Charter Act of 1813 and the Charter Act of 1833, further defined the relationship of the Company and the British government.

At the turn of the 19th century, Governor-General Lord Wellesley's (brother of the Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington) began expanding the Company's domain on a large scale, finally defeating Tippu Sultan (also spelled Tippoo Sultan) with the help of the Nizam of Hyderbad, annexing Mysore in southern India, and removing all French influence from the subcontinent. In the mid-19th century, Governor-General Lord Dalhousie launched perhaps the Company's most ambitious expansion, defeating the Sikhs in the Anglo-Sikh Wars (and annexing the Punjab with the exception of the Phulkian States) and subduing Burma in the Second Burmese War. He also justified the takeover of small princely states such as Satara, Sambalpur, Jhansi, and Nagpur by way of the doctrine of lapse, which permitted the Company to annex any princely state whose ruler had died without a male heir. The annexation of Oudh in 1856 proved to be the Company's final territorial acquisition.

Indian Uprising of 1857

Main articles: Indian Rebellion of 1857 and Causes of the Indian Rebellion of 1857

On 10 May 1857 soldiers of the British Indian Army (known as "sepoys," from Urdu/Persian sipaahi = "soldier"), drawn from the Indian Hindu and Muslim population, rose against British in Meerut, a cantonment sixty five kilometres northeast of Delhi. At the time, the strength of the Company's Army in India was 238,000, of whom 38,000 were Europeans. Indian soldiers marched to Delhi to offer their services to the Mughal emperor, and soon much of north and central India was plunged into a year-long insurrection against the British East India Company. Many Indian regiments and Indian kingdoms joined the uprising, while other Indian units and Indian kingdoms backed the British commanders and the HEIC.

The policy of annexation pursued by Governor-General Lord Dalhousie, based mainly on his "Doctrine of Lapse", which held that princely states would be merged into company-ruled territory in case a ruler died without direct heir. This denied the Indian rulers the right to adopt an heir in such an event; adoption had been pervasive practice in the Hindu states hitherto, sanctioned by religion. The states annexed under this doctrine included such major kingdoms as Satara, Thanjavur, Sambhal, Jhansi, Jetpur, Udaipur, and Baghat. Additionally, the company had annexed, without pretext, the rich kingdoms of Sind in 1843 and Oudh in 1856, the latter a wealthy princely state that generated huge revenue and represented a vestige of Mughal authority.

The justice system was considered inherently unfair to the Indians. The official Blue Books — entitled East India (Torture) 1855–1857 — that were laid before the House of Commons during the sessions of 1856 and 1857 revealed that Company officers were allowed an extended series of appeals if convicted or accused of brutality or crimes against Indians.

The economic policies of the British East India Company were also resented by the Indians. Most of the gold, jewels, silver and silk had been shipped off to Britain as tax and sometimes sold in open auctions, ridding India of its once abundant wealth in precious stones. The land was reorganised under the comparatively harsh Zamindari system to facilitate the collection of taxes. In certain areas farmers were forced to switch from subsistence farming to commercial crops such as indigo, jute, coffee and tea. This resulted in hardship to the farmers and increases in food prices. Local industry, specifically the famous weavers of Bengal and elsewhere, also suffered under British rule. Import tariffs were kept low, according to traditional British free-market sentiments, and thus the Indian market was flooded with cheap clothing from Britain. Indigenous industry simply could not compete, and where once India had produced much of England's luxury cloth, the country was now reduced to growing cotton which was shipped to Britain to be manufactured into clothing, which was subsequently shipped back to India to be purchased by Indians.

Aftermath of the rebellion: the new Raj

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 United Provinces of Agra and Oudh, who had formed the core of the rebellion, were disbanded.^[19] New regiments, like the Sikhs and Baluchis, composed of Indians who, in British estimation, had demonstrated steadfastness, were formed. From then on, the Indian army was to remain unchanged in its organization until 1947.^[20]
  • 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."^[19] They too were rewarded in the new British Raj, by being officially recognised in the treaties each state now signed with the Crown.^[20] 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).^[20]
    • 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.^[19] 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).^[20]

      Many existing economic and revenue policies remained virtually unchanged in the post-1857 period, but several administrative modifications were introduced, beginning with the creation in London of a cabinet post, the Secretary of State for India. The governor-general (called viceroy when acting as representative to the nominally sovereign "princely states" or "native states"), headquartered in Calcutta, ran the administration in India, assisted by executive and legislative councils. Beneath the governor-general were the governors of Provinces of India, who held power over the division and district officials, who formed the lower rungs of the Indian Civil Service.

      The Viceroy of India announced in 1858 that the government would honour former treaties with princely states and renounced the "Doctrine of Lapse", whereby the East India Company had annexed territories of rulers who died without male heirs. About 40 percent of Indian territory and 20–25 percent of the population remained under the control of 562 princes notable for their religious (Islamic, Hindu, Sikh and other) and ethnic diversity.

      Effects on economy

      India railways1909a.jpg The 1909 Map of Indian Railways, when India had the fourth largest railway network in the world. Railway construction in India began in 1853.

      Victoriaterminus1903.JPG "The most magnificent railway station in the world." Stereographic image of Victoria Terminus, Bombay, which was completed in 1888.

      Agra canal headworks1871a.jpg The Agra canal (c. 1873), a year away from completion. The canal was closed to navigation in 1904 in order to increase irrigation and aid in famine-prevention.

      George Robinson 1st Marquess of Ripon.jpg Lord Ripon, the Liberal Viceroy of India, who instituted the Famine Code

      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.^[21] 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 change then rampant in Great 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.^[22] Likewise, finished goods from England, were transported back, just as efficiently, for sale in the burgeoning Indian markets.^[23] However, unlike Britain itself, where the market risks for the infrastructure development were borne by private investors, in India, it was the taxpayers—primarily farmers and farm-labourers—who endured the risks, which, in the end, amounted to £50 million.^[24] In spite of these costs, very little skilled employment was created for Indians. By 1920, with the fourth largest railway network in the world and a history of 60 years of its construction, only ten per cent of the "superior posts" in the Indian Railways were held by Indians.^[25]

      The rush of technology was also changing the agricultural economy in India: by the last decade of the 19th century, a large fraction of some raw materials—not only cotton, but also some food-grains—were being exported to faraway markets.^[26] Consequently, many small farmers, dependent on the whims of those markets, lost land, animals, and equipment to money-lenders.^[26]. More tellingly, the latter half of the 19th century also saw an increase in the number of large-scale famines in India. Although famines were not new to the subcontinent, these were particularly severe, with tens of millions dying,^[27] and with many critics, both British and Indian, laying the blame at the doorsteps of the lumbering colonial administrations.^[26]

      Beginnings of self-government

      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 Government of India Act of 1909 — also known as the Morley-Minto Reforms (John Morley was the secretary of state for India, and Gilbert Elliot, fourth earl of Minto, was viceroy) — gave Indians limited roles in the central and provincial legislatures, known as legislative councils. Indians had previously been appointed to legislative councils, but after the reforms some were elected to them. At the centre, the majority of council members continued to be government-appointed officials, and the viceroy was in no way responsible to the legislature. At the provincial level, the elected members, together with unofficial appointees, outnumbered the appointed officials, but responsibility of the governor to the legislature was not contemplated. Morley made it clear in introducing the legislation to the British Parliament that parliamentary self-government was not the goal of the British government.

      The Morley-Minto Reforms were a milestone. Step by step, the elective principle was introduced for membership in Indian legislative councils. The "electorate" was limited, however, to a small group of upper-class Indians. These elected members increasingly became an "opposition" to the "official government". The Communal electorates were later extended to other communities and made a political factor of the Indian tendency toward group identification through religion.

      John Morley, the Secretary of State for India from 1905 to 1910, and Gladstonian Liberal. The Government of India Act of 1909, also known as the Minto-Morley Reforms allowed Indians to be elected to the Legislative Council.

      Delhidurbar pc1911.jpg Picture post card of the Gordon Highlanders marching past King George V and Queen Mary at the Delhi Durbar on December 12, 1911, when the King was crowned Emperor of India.

      Indiantroops medical ww1.jpg Indian medical orderlies attending to wounded soldiers with the Mesopotamian Expeditionary Force in Mesopotamia during World War I.

      Khudadad khan vc1915.jpg Sepoy Khudadad Khan, the first Indian to be awarded the Victoria Cross, the British Empire's highest war-time medal for gallantry. Khan, who hailed from Chakwal District, Punjab, in present-day Pakistan, died in 1971.

      World War I and its aftermath

      World War I would prove to be a watershed in the imperial relationship between Britain and India. 1.4 million Indian and British soldiers of the British Indian Army would take part in the war and their participation would have a wider cultural fallout: news of Indian soldiers fighting and dying with British soldiers, as well as soldiers from dominions like Canada and Australia, would travel to distant corners of the world both in newsprint and by the new medium of the radio.^[28] India’s international profile would thereby rise and would continue to rise during the 1920s.^[28] It was to lead, among other things, to India, under its own name, becoming a founding member of the League of Nations in 1920 and participating, under the name, "Les Indes Anglaises" (The British Indies), in the 1920 Summer Olympics in Antwerp.^[29] Back in India, especially among the leaders of the Indian National Congress, it would lead to calls for greater self-government for Indians.^[28]

      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 realization, 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.^[30] 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 honors 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.^[30] 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 realization of responsible government in India as an integral part of the British Empire.”^[30] 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.^[30]

      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.”^[28] 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.^[31] 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.^[31] However, since the Government of India wanted to ensure against any sabotage of the reform process by extremists,^{[citation needed]} 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.^[31]

      Image:Montagu left.jpg

      Edwin Montagu, left, the Secretary of State for India, whose report, led to the Government of India Act of 1919, also known as the Montford Reforms or the Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms.

      Consequently in 1917, even as Edwin Montagu, announced the new constitutional reforms a sedition committee chaired by a British judge, Mr. S. A. T. Rowlatt, was tasked with investigating revolutionary conspiracies and the German and Bolshevik links to the violence in India,^[32][33][34] with the unstated goal of extending the government's war-time powers.^[30] The Rowlatt committee presented its report in July 1918 and identified three regions of conspiratorial insurgency: Bengal, the Bombay presidency, and the Punjab.^[30] 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,^[30] and the power for provincial governments to arrest and detain suspects in short-term detention facilities and without trial.^[35]

      With the end of World War I, there was also a change in the economic climate. By year’s end 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.^[36] 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.^[36] Returning war veterans, especially in the Punjab, created a growing unemployment crisis^[37] and post-war inflation led to food riots in Bombay, Madras, and Bengal provinces,^[37] a situation that was made only worse by the failure of the 1918-19 monsoon and by profiteering and speculation.^[36] The global influenza epidemic and the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917 added to the general jitters; the former among the population already experiencing economic woes,^[37] and the latter among government officials, fearing a similar revolution in India.^[38]

      To combat what it saw as a coming crisis, the government now drafted the Rowlatt committee's recommendations into two Rowlatt Bills.^[35] 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.”^[30] 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.^[30] However, what it passed, in deference to the Indian opposition, was a lesser version of the first bill, which now allowed extra-judicial 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 of the Indian Penal Code.^[30] Even so, when it was passed the new Rowlatt Act aroused widespread indignation throughout India and brought Mohandas Gandhi to the forefront of the nationalist movement.^[35]

      Meanwhile, Montagu and Chelmsford themselves finally presented their report in July 1918 after a long fact-finding trip through India the previous winter.^[39] 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 of 1919 (also known as the Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms) was passed in December 1919.^[39] The new Act enlarged both the provincial and Imperial legislative councils and repealed the Government of India’s recourse to the “official majority” in unfavorable votes.^[39] Although departments like defense, 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 and local self-government were transferred to the provinces.^[39] 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.^[39] The new Act also made it easier for Indians to be admitted into the civil service and the army officer corps.

      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.^[39] 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.^[39] 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.^[39] 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.^[39]

      1930s: Government of India Act (1935), Elections of 1937

      Image:Second round tableconf.gif

      British Prime Minister Ramsay MacDonald to the right of Mahatma Gandhi at the Second Round Table Conference in London, October 1931.

      In 1935, after the Round Table Conferences, the British Parliament approved the Government of India Act of 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.^[23] The future Constitution of independent India would owe a great deal to the text of this act.^[40] The act also provided for a bicameral national parliament and an executive branch under the purview of the British government. Although the national federation was never realised, nationwide elections for provincial assemblies were held in 1937. Despite initial hesitation, the Congress took part in the elections and won victories in seven of the eleven provinces of British India,^[41] and Congress governments, with wide powers, were formed in these provinces. In Great Britain, these victories were to later turn the tide for the idea of Indian independence.^[41]

      World War II

      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; however, it now took the view that Muslims would be unfairly treated in an independent India dominated by the Congress. The British government—through its Cripps' mission—attempted to secure Indian nationalists' cooperation in the war effort in exchange for independence afterwards; however, the negotiations between them and the Congress broke down. Gandhi, subsequently, launched the “Quit India” movement in August 1942, demanding the immediate withdrawal of the British from India or face nationwide civil disobedience. Along with all other Congress leaders, Gandhi was immediately imprisoned, and 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 in India led to most of the movement being crushed in a little more than six weeks;^[42] nonetheless, a portion of the movement formed for a time an underground provisional government on the border with Nepal,^[42] as well as in other parts especially United Provinces, Bihar, the North-West Frontier, and Bengal and Madras.^[43] The movement, which continued at various intensities till 1944, was described as Linlithgow as "by far the most serious rebellion since 1857"^[44] and significant enough Rob Lockhart to describe India as a "occupied and a hostile country".^[45]

      With Congress leaders in jail, attention also turned to Subhas Bose, who had been ousted from the Congress in 1939 following differences with the more conservative high command;^[46] Bose now turned to the Axis powers for help with liberating India by force.^[47] With Japanese support, he reorganised the Indian National Army, composed largely of Indian soldiers of the British Indian army who had been captured at Singapore by the Japanese. From the start of the war, the Japanese secret service had promoted unrest in South east Asia to destabilise the British War effort,^[48] and came to support a number of puppet and provisional governments in the captured regions, including those in Burma, the Philippines and Vietnam, the Provisional Government of Azad Hind (Free India), presided by Bose.^[49][47] Bose's effort, however, was short lived; after the reverses of 1944, the reinforced British Indian Army in 1945 first halted and then reversed the Japanese U Go offensive, beginning the successful Burma Campaign. Bose's Indian National Army ended with the recapture of Singapore, and Bose died in a plane crash soon thereafter. The trials of the INA soldiers at Red Fort in late 1945 however caused widespread public unrest and nationalist violence in India, including in the Armed Forces.^{[50][51][52][53]}

      Post-war developments: Transfer of Power

      Image:Brit IndianEmpireReligions3.jpg

      1909 Prevailing Religions, Map of British Indian Empire, 1909, showing the prevailing majority religions of the population for different districts.
      Image:India Pakistan1947a.jpg

      Map of India and Pakistan as envisaged in the Partition Plan
      Image:Mountbatten 4 august 1947.jpg

      Viceroy Louis Mountbatten eleven days before the Transfer of Power.

      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.^[54] 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 found much public support in India and 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.^[54]

      Also in early 1946, new elections were called in India in which the Congress won electoral victories in eight of the eleven provinces.^[55] The negotiations between the Congress and the Muslim League, however, stumbled over the issue of the partition. Jinnah proclaimed August 16, 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.

      Later that year, the Labor government in Britain, its exchequer exhausted by the recently concluded World War II, decided to end British rule of India, and in early 1947 Britain announced its intention of transferring power no later than June 1948.

      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. In June 1947, the nationalist leaders, including 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. The predominantly Hindu and Sikh areas were assigned to the new 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.

      Many millions of Muslim, Sikh, and Hindu refugees trekked across the newly drawn borders. In Punjab, where the new border lines divided the Sikh regions in half, massive bloodshed followed; in Bengal and Bihar, where Gandhi's presence assuaged communal tempers, the violence was more limited. In all, anywhere between 250,000 and 500,000 people on both sides of the new borders died in the violence.^[56] On August 14, 1947, the new Dominion of Pakistan came into being, with Muhammad Ali Jinnah sworn in as its first Governor General in Karachi. The following day, August 15, 1947, India, now a smaller Union of India, became an independent country with official ceremonies taking place in New Delhi, and with Jawaharlal Nehru assuming the office of the prime minister, and the viceroy, Louis Mountbatten, staying on as its first Governor General.

      Provinces of British India

      Main article: Provinces of British India

      At the time of independence, British India consisted of the following provinces:

      • Ajmer-Merwara-Kekri
      • Andaman and Nicobar Islands
      • Assam
      • Baluchistan
      • Bengal
      • Bihar
      • Bombay Province - Bombay
      • Central Provinces and Berar
      • Delhi Province - Delhi
      • Madras Province - Madras
      • North-West Frontier Province
      • Panth-Piploda
      • Orissa
      • British Punjab
      • Sindh
      • United Provinces (Agra and Oudh)

      Eleven provinces (Assam, Bengal, Bihar, Bombay, Central Provinces, Madras, North-West Frontier, Orissa, Punjab, and Sindh) were headed by a governor. The remaining six (Ajmer Merwara, Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Baluchistan, Coorg, Delhi, and Panth-Piploda) were governed by a chief commissioner.

      There were also several hundred Princely States, under British protection but ruled by native rulers. Among the most notable of these were Jaipur, Gwalior, Hyderabad, Mysore, Travancore and Jammu and Kashmir.

      Map of the Madras Presidency, 1909

      Map of the Baroda State, 1909

      Map of the Hyderabad State, 1909

      Map of the Northern Bombay Presidency, 1909

      See also

      British Empire Portal

      • British rule in India for other periods when parts of India were under British rule.
      • Colonial India
      • Indian independence movement
      • Anglo-Indian
      • Anglo-Burmese people
      • British Empire
      • Imperialism in Asia
      • India Office
      • List of Indian Princely States
      • Governor-General of India
      • Commander-in-Chief of India
      • Indian Civil Service

      Notes

      1. ^ First the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland then, after 1927, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
      2. ^ "Nepal." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2008.
      3. ^ "Bhutan." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2008.
      4. ^ "Sikkim." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2007. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. 5 Aug. 2007 <http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-46212>.
      5. ^ [1]
      6. ^ [2]
      7. ^ [3]
      8. ^ [4]
      9. ^ [5][6]
      10. ^ [7]
      11. ^ [8]
      12. ^ [9]
      13. ^ [10]
      14. ^ [11]
      15. ^ [12]
      16. ^ [13]
      17. ^ [14]
      18. ^ [15][16]
      19. ^ ^{a b c} Spear 1990, p. 147
      20. ^ ^{a b c d} Spear 1990, pp. 147-148
      21. ^ (Stein 2001, p. 259), (Oldenburg 2007)
      22. ^ (Oldenburg 2007), (Stein 2001, p. 258)
      23. ^ ^{a b} (Oldenburg 2007)
      24. ^ (Stein 2001, p. 258)
      25. ^ (Stein 2001, p. 159)
      26. ^ ^{a b c} (Stein 2001, p. 260)
      27. ^ (Bose & Jalal 2003, p. 117)
      28. ^ ^{a b c d} Brown 1994, pp. 197-198
      29. ^ Olympic Games Antwerp 1920: Official Report, Nombre de bations representees, p. 168. Quote: "31 Nations avaient accepté l'invitation du Comité Olympique Belge: ... la Grèce - la Hollande Les Indes Anglaises - l'Italie - le Japon ..."
      30. ^ ^{a b c d e f g h i j}
      31. ^ ^{a b c} Brown 1994, pp. 201-203
      32. ^ Lovett 1920, p. 94, 187-191
      33. ^ Sarkar 1921, p. 137
      34. ^ Tinker 1968, p. 92
      35. ^ ^{a b c}
      36. ^ ^{a b c} Brown 1994, pp. 195-196
      37. ^ ^{a b c} Stein 2001, p. 304
      38. ^ Ludden 2002, p. 208
      39. ^ ^{a b c d e f g h i} Brown 1994, pp. 205-207
      40. ^ (Low 1993, pp. 40, 156)
      41. ^ ^{a b} (Low 1993, p. 154)
      42. ^ ^{a b} (Metcalf & Metcalf 2006, pp. 206-207)
      43. ^ Bandyopadhyay 2004, p. 420
      44. ^ Bandyopadhyay 2004, p. 420
      45. ^ James 1997, p. 571
      46. ^ Nehru 1942, p. 424
      47. ^ ^{a b} (Low 1993, pp. 31-31)
      48. ^ Lebra 1977, p. 23
      49. ^ Lebra 1977, p. 31
      50. ^ Chaudhuri 1953, p. 349
      51. ^ Sarkar 1983, p. 411
      52. ^ Fay 1993, p. 496,498,499
      53. ^ Hyam 2007, p. 115
      54. ^ ^{a b} (Judd 2004, pp. 172-173)
      55. ^ (Judd 2004, p. 172)
      56. ^ (Khosla 2001, p. 299)

      
      

      References

      Contemporary General Histories

      • Bandyopadhyay, Sekhar (2004), From Plassey to Partition: A History of Modern India, New Delhi and London: Orient Longmans. Pp. xx, 548., ISBN 8125025960, <https://www.orientlongman.com/display.asp?isbn=978-81-250-2596-2>.
      • Bose, Sugata & Ayesha Jalal (2003), Modern South Asia: History, Culture, Political Economy, London and New York: Routledge, 2nd edition. Pp. xiii, 304, ISBN 0-415-30787-2, <http://www.amazon.com/Modern-South-Asia-Sugata-Bose/dp/0415307872/>.
      • Brown, Judith M. (1994), Modern India: The Origins of an Asian Democracy, Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press. Pp. xiii, 474, ISBN 0198731132, <http://www.oup.com/uk/catalogue/?ci=9780198731139>.
      • 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, ISBN 0192803581, <http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/HistoryWorld/India/?view=usa&ci=9780192803580>.
      • Kulke, Hermann & Dietmar Rothermund (2004), A History of India, 4th edition. Routledge, Pp. xii, 448, ISBN 0415329205, <http://www.amazon.com/History-India-Hermann-Kulke/dp/0415329205/>.
      • Ludden, David (2002), India And South Asia: A Short History, Oxford: Oneworld Publications. Pp. xii, 306, ISBN 1851682376, <http://www.oneworld-publications.com/cgi-bin/cart/commerce.cgi?pid=145&log_pid=yes>
      • Markovits, Claude (ed) (2005), A History of Modern India 1480-1950 (Anthem South Asian Studies), Anthem Press. Pp. 607, ISBN 1843311526, <http://www.amazon.com/History-Modern-1480-1950-Anthem-Studies/dp/1843311526/>.
      • Metcalf, Barbara & Thomas R. Metcalf (2006), A Concise History of Modern India (Cambridge Concise Histories), Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press. Pp. xxxiii, 372, ISBN 0521682258, <http://www.amazon.com/Concise-History-Modern-Cambridge-Histories/dp/0521682258/>.
      • Robb, Peter (2004), A History of India (Palgrave Essential Histories), Houndmills, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan. Pp. xiv, 344, ISBN 0333691296, <http://www.amazon.com/History-India-Palgrave-Essential-Histories/dp/0333691296/>.
      • Sarkar, Sumit (1983), Modern India: 1885-1947, Delhi: Macmillan India Ltd. Pp. xiv, 486, ISBN 0333904257.
      • Spear, Percival (1990), A History of India, Volume 2, New Delhi and London: Penguin Books. Pp. 298, ISBN 0140138366, <http://www.amazon.com/History-India-Vol-2/dp/0140138366/ref=pd_ybh_a_6/104-7029728-9591925>.
      • Stein, Burton (2001), A History of India, New Delhi and Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pp. xiv, 432, ISBN 0195654463, <http://www.amazon.com/History-India-World/dp/0631205462/ref=pd_ybh_a_7/104-7029728-9591925>.
      • Wolpert, Stanley (2003), A New History of India, Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press. Pp. 544, ISBN 0195166787, <http://www.amazon.com/New-History-India-Stanley-Wolpert/dp/0195166787/>.

      Monographs and Collections

      • Anderson, Clare (2007), Indian Uprising of 1857–8: Prisons, Prisoners and Rebellion, New York: Anthem Press, Pp. 217, ISBN 9781843312499, <http://atlantis.terrassl.net/anthempress.com/product_info.php?cPath=52&products_id=293&osCsid=9a2s9o8mdu8066m551rr407123>
      • Ansari, Sarah (2005), Life after Partition: Migration, Community and Strife in Sindh: 1947–1962, Oxford and London: Oxford University Press, Pp. 256, ISBN ISBN 019597834X
      • Bayly, C. A. (1990), Indian Society and the Making of the British Empire (The New Cambridge History of India), Cambridge and London: Cambridge University Press. Pp. 248, ISBN 0521386500.
      • Brown, Judith M. (ed.) & Wm. Roger Louis (ed.) (2001), Oxford History of the British Empire: The Twentieth Century, Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press. Pp. 800, ISBN 0199246793, <http://www.amazon.com/Oxford-History-British-Empire-Twentieth/dp/0199246793>
      • Butalia, Urvashi (1998), The Other Side of Silence: Voices from the Partition of India, Durham, NC: Duke University Press, Pp. 308, ISBN 0822324946
      • Chandavarkar, Rajnarayan (1998), Imperial Power and Popular Politics: Class, Resistance and the State in India, 1850-1950, (Cambridge Studies in Indian History & Society). Cambridge and London: Cambridge University Press. Pp. 400, ISBN 0521596920, <http://www.amazon.com/Imperial-Power-Popular-Politics-Resistance/dp/0521596920/>.
      • Chatterji, Joya (1993), Bengal Divided: Hindu Communalism and Partition, 1932–1947, Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press. Pp. 323, ISBN 0521523281.
      • Copland, Ian (2002), Princes of India in the Endgame of Empire, 1917-1947, (Cambridge Studies in Indian History & Society). Cambridge and London: Cambridge University Press. Pp. 316, ISBN 0521894360, <http://www.amazon.com/Princes-Endgame-19171947-Cambridge-Studies/dp/0521894360/>.
      • Fay, Peter W. (1993), The Forgotten Army: India's Armed Struggle for Independence, 1942-1945., Ann Arbor, University of Michigan Press., ISBN 0472083422.
      • Gilmartin, David. 1988. Empire and Islam: Punjab and the Making of Pakistan. Berkeley: University of California Press. 258 pages. ISBN 0520062493.
      • Gould, William (2004), Hindu Nationalism and the Language of Politics in Late Colonial India, (Cambridge Studies in Indian History and Society). Cambridge and London: Cambridge University Press. Pp. 320, ISBN 0521830613, <http://www.amazon.com/Nationalism-Language-Politics-Colonial-Cambridge/dp/0521830613/>.
      • Hyam, Ronald (2007), Britain's Declining Empire: The Road to Decolonisation 1918-1968., Cambridge University Press., ISBN 0521866499..
      • Jalal, Ayesha (1993), The Sole Spokesman: Jinnah, the Muslim League and the Demand for Pakistan, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 334 pages, ISBN 0521458501.
      • Khan, Yasmin (September 18 2007), The Great Partition: The Making of India and Pakistan, New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 250 pages (published 2007), ISBN 0300120788
      • Khosla, G. D. (2001), "Stern Reckoning", in Page, David; Anita Inder Singh & Penderal Moon et al., The Partition Omnibus: Prelude to Partition/the Origins of the Partition of India 1936-1947/Divide and Quit/Stern Reckoning, Delhi and Oxford: Oxford University Press, ISBN 0195658507, <http://www.amazon.com/Partition-Omnibus-comprising-Imperial-Contribution/dp/0195671767/>
      • Low, D. A. (1993), Eclipse of Empire, Cambridge and London: Cambridge University Press. Pp. xvi, 366, ISBN 0521457548, <http://www.amazon.com/Eclipse-Empire-D-Low/dp/0521457548/>.
      • Low, D. A. (2002), Britain and Indian Nationalism: The Imprint of Amibiguity 1929-1942, Cambridge and London: Cambridge University Press. Pp. 374, ISBN 0521892619, <http://www.amazon.com/Britain-Indian-Nationalism-Amibiguity-19291942/dp/0521892619/>.
      • Low, D. A. (ed.) (1977, 2004), Congress & the Raj: Facets of the Indian Struggle 1917-47, New Delhi and Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pp. xviii, 513, ISBN 0195683676.
      • Metcalf, Thomas R. (1991), The Aftermath of Revolt: India, 1857-1870, Riverdale Co. Pub. Pp. 352, ISBN 8185054991
      • Metcalf, Thomas R. (1997), Ideologies of the Raj, Cambridge and London: Cambridge University Press, Pp. 256, ISBN 0521589371
      • Pandey, Gyanendra (2002), Remembering Partition: Violence, Nationalism and History in India, ISBN 0521002508
      • Porter, Andrew (ed.) (2001), Oxford History of the British Empire: Nineteenth Century, Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press. Pp. 800, ISBN 0199246785, <http://www.amazon.com/Oxford-History-British-Empire-Nineteenth/dp/0199246785>
      • Shaikh, Farzana. 1989. Community and Consensus in Islam: Muslim Representation in Colonial India, 1860—1947. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 272 pages. ISBN 0521363284.
      • Talbot, Ian and Gurharpal Singh (eds). 1999. Region and Partition: Bengal, Punjab and the Partition of the Subcontinent. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press. 420 pages. ISBN 0195790510.
      • Talbot, Ian. 2002. Khizr Tiwana: The Punjab Unionist Party and the Partition of India. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press. 216 pages. ISBN 0195795512.
      • Wainwright, A. Martin (1993), Inheritance of Empire: Britain, India, and the Balance of Power in Asia, 1938-55, Praeger Publishers. Pp. xvi, 256, ISBN 0275947335, <http://www.amazon.com/Inheritance-Empire-Britain-Balance-1938-55/dp/0275947335/>.
      • Wolpert, Stanley (2006), Shameful Flight: The Last Years of the British Empire in India, Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press. Pp. 272, ISBN 0195151984.

      Articles in Journals or Collections

      • Banthia, Jayant & Tim Dyson (1999), "Smallpox in Nineteenth-Century India", Population and Development Review 25 (4): 649-689, <http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0098-7921%28199912%2925%3A4%3C649%3ASINI%3E2.0.CO%3B2-K>
      • Brown, Judith M., "India", in Brown, Judith M. & Wm. Roger Louis, Oxford History of the British Empire: The Twentieth Century, Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 2001, 421-446, ISBN 0199246793
      • Caldwell, John C. (1998), "Malthus and the Less Developed World: The Pivotal Role of India", Population and Development Review 24 (4): 675-696, <http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0098-7921%28199812%2924%3A4%3C675%3AMATLDW%3E2.0.CO%3B2-%23>
      • Derbyshire, I. D. (1987), "Economic Change and the Railways in North India, 1860-1914", Population Studies 21 (3): 521-545, <http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0026-749X%281987%2921%3A3%3C521%3AECATRI%3E2.0.CO%3B2-O>
      • Drayton, Richard, "Science, Medicine, and the British Empire", in Winks, Robin, Oxford History of the British Empire: Historiography, Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 2001, 264-276, ISBN 0199246807
      • Dyson, Tim (1991), "On the Demography of South Asian Famines: Part I", Population Studies 45 (1): 5-25, <http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0032-4728%28199103%2945%3A1%3C5%3AOTDOSA%3E2.0.CO%3B2-V>
      • Dyson, Tim (1991), "On the Demography of South Asian Famines: Part II", Population Studies 45 (2): 279-297, <http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0032-4728%28199107%2945%3A2%3C279%3AOTDOSA%3E2.0.CO%3B2-S>
      • Frykenberg, Robert E., "India to 1858", in Winks, Robin, Oxford History of the British Empire: Historiography, Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 2001, 194-213, ISBN 0199246807
      • Gilmartin, David (1994), "Scientific Empire and Imperial Science: Colonialism and Irrigation Technology in the Indus Basin", The Journal of Asian Studies 53 (4): 1127-1149, <http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0021-9118%28199411%2953%3A4%3C1127%3ASEAISC%3E2.0.CO%3B2-S>
      • Goswami, Manu (1998), "From Swadeshi to Swaraj: Nation, Economy, Territory in Colonial South Asia, 1870 to 1907", Comparative Studies in Society and History 40 (4): 609-636, <http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0010-4175%28199810%2940%3A4%3C609%3AFSTSNE%3E2.0.CO%3B2-Q>
      • Harnetty, Peter (1991), "'Deindustrialization' Revisited: The Handloom Weavers of the Central Provinces of India, c. 1800-1947", Modern Asian Studies 25 (3): 455-510, <http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0026-749X%28199107%2925%3A3%3C455%3A%27RTHWO%3E2.0.CO%3B2-5>
      • Heuman, Gad, "Slavery, the Slave Trade, and Abolition", in Winks, Robin, Oxford History of the British Empire: Historiography, Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 2001, 315-326, ISBN 0199246807
      • Klein, Ira (1988), "Plague, Policy and Popular Unrest in British India", Modern Asian Studies 22 (4): 723-755, <http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0026-749X%281988%2922%3A4%3C723%3APPAPUI%3E2.0.CO%3B2-B>
      • Klein, Ira (2000), "Materialism, Mutiny and Modernization in British India", Modern Asian Studies 34 (3): 545-580, <http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0026-749X%28200007%2934%3A3%3C545%3AMMAMIB%3E2.0.CO%3B2-I>
      • Kubicek, Robert, "British Expansion, Empire, and Technological Change", in Porter, Andrew, Oxford History of the British Empire: The Nineteenth Century, Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 2001, 247-269, ISBN 0199246785
      • Moore, Robin J., "Imperial India, 1858-1914", in Porter, Andrew, Oxford History of the British Empire: The Nineteenth Century, Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 2001, 422-446, ISBN 0199246785
      • Moore, Robin J., "India in the 1940s", in Winks, Robin, Oxford History of the British Empire: Historiography, Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 2001, 231-242, ISBN 0199246807
      • Raj, Kapil (2000), "Colonial Encounters and the Forging of New Knowledge and National Identities: Great Britain and India, 1760-1850", Osiris, 2nd Series 15 (Nature and Empire: Science and the Colonial Enterprise): 119-134, <http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0369-7827%282000%292%3A15%3C119%3ACEATFO%3E2.0.CO%3B2-9>
      • Ray, Rajat Kanta (1995), "Asian Capital in the Age of European Domination: The Rise of the Bazaar, 1800-1914", Modern Asian Studies 29 (3): 449-554, <http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0026-749X%28199507%2929%3A3%3C449%3AACITAO%3E2.0.CO%3B2-J>
      • Raychaudhuri, Tapan, "India, 1858 to the 1930s", in Winks, Robin, Oxford History of the British Empire: Historiography, Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 2001, 214-230, ISBN 0199246807
      • Robb, Peter (1997), "The Colonial State and Constructions of Indian Identity: An Example on the Northeast Frontier in the 1880s", Modern Asian Studies 31 (2): 245-283, <http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0026-749X%28199705%2931%3A2%3C245%3ATCSACO%3E2.0.CO%3B2-K>
      • Roy, Tirthankar (2002), "Economic History and Modern India: Redefining the Link", The Journal of Economic Perspectives 16 (3): 109-130, <http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0895-3309%28200222%2916%3A3%3C109%3AEHAMIR%3E2.0.CO%3B2-F>
      • Simmons, Colin (1985), "'De-Industrialization', Industrialization and the Indian Economy, c. 1850-1947", Modern Asian Studies 19 (3): 593-622, <http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0026-749X%281985%2919%3A3%3C593%3A%27IATIE%3E2.0.CO%3B2-K>
      • Talbot, Ian, "Pakistan's Emergence", in Winks, Robin, Oxford History of the British Empire: Historiography, Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 2001, 253-263, ISBN 0199246807
      • 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, Sage Publications, ISSN: 00220094.
      • Tomlinson, B. R., "Economics and Empire: The Periphery and the Imperial Economy", in Porter, Andrew, Oxford History of the British Empire: The Nineteenth Century, Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 2001, 53-74, ISBN 0199246785
      • Washbrook, D. A., "India, 1818-1860: The Two Faces of Colonialism", in Porter, Andrew, Oxford History of the British Empire: The Nineteenth Century, Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 2001, 395-421, ISBN 0199246785
      • Watts, Sheldon (1999), "British Development Policies and Malaria in India 1897-c. 1929", Past and Present (no. 165): 141-181, <http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0031-2746%28199911%290%3A165%3C141%3ABDPAMI%3E2.0.CO%3B2-1>
      • Wylie, Diana, "Disease, Diet, and Gender: Late Twentieth Century Perspectives on Empire", in Winks, Robin, Oxford History of the British Empire: Historiography, Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 2001, 277-289, ISBN 0199246807

      Classic Histories

      • Lovett, Sir Verney (1920), A History of the Indian Nationalist Movement, New York, Frederick A. Stokes Company, ISBN 81-7536-249-9
      • Majumdar, R. C.; H. C. Raychaudhuri & Kalikinkar Datta (1950), An Advanced History of India, London: Macmillan and Company Limited. 2nd edition. Pp. xiii, 1122, 7 maps, 5 coloured maps..
      • Smith, Vincent A. (1921), India in the British Period: Being Part III of the Oxford History of India, Oxford: At the Clarendon Press. 2nd edition. Pp. xxiv, 316 (469-784).

      Tertiary Sources

      • Oldenburg, Philip (2007), ""India: Movement for Freedom"", Encarta Encyclopedia.
      • Wolpert, Stanley (2007), "India: British Imperial Power 1858-1947 (Indian nationalism and the British response, 1885-1920; Prelude to Independence, 1920-1947)", Encyclopædia Britannica.

      Related Reading

      • Bairoch, Paul, Economics and World History, University of Chicago Press, 1995
      • Bhatia, B. M., Famines in India: A study in Some Aspects of the Economic History of India with Special Reference to Food Problem, Delhi: Konark Publishers Pvt. Ltd, 1985
      • Bowle, John, The Imperial Achievement, Secker & Warburg, London, 1974, ISBN-13: 978-0316104098
      • Coates, Tim, (series editor), The Amritsar Massacre 1919 - General Dyer in the Punjab (Official Reports, including Dyer's Testimonies), Her Majesty's Stationary Office (HMSO) 1925, abridged edition, 2000, ISBN 0-11-702412-0
      • Davis, Mike, Late Victorian Holocausts: El Niño Famines and the Making of the Third World 2001, ISBN 1-85984-739-0
      • Dutt, Romesh C. Open Letters to Lord Curzon on Famines and Land Assessments in India, first published 1900, 2005 edition by Adamant Media Corporation, Elibron Classics Series, ISBN 1-4021-5115-2
      • Dutt, Romesh C. The Economic History of India under early British Rule, first published 1902, 2001 edition by Routledge, ISBN 0-415-24493-5
      • Forbes, Rosita, India of the Princes', London, 1939
      • Forrest, G. W., CIE, (editor), Selections from The State Papers of the Governors-General of India - Warren Hastings (2 vols), Blackwell's, Oxford, 1910
      • James, Lawrence, Raj - The Making and Unmaking of British India, London, 1997, ISBN 0-316-64072-7
      • Keay, John, The Honourable Company - A History of the English East India Company, HarperCollins, London, 1991, ISBN 0-00-217515-0
      • Moorhouse, Geoffrey, India Britannica, Book Club Associates, UK, 1983
      • Morris, Jan, with Simon Winchester, Stones of Empire - The Buildings of the Raj, Oxford University Press, 1st edition 1983 (paperback edition 1986, ISBN 0-19-282036-2
      • Sen, Amartya, Poverty and Famines: An Essay on Entitlements and Deprivation, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1982
      • Srivastava, H.C., The History of Indian Famines from 1858-1918, Sri Ram Mehra and Co., Agra, 1968
      • Voelcker, John Augustus, Report on the Improvement of Indian Agriculture, Indian Government publication, Calcutta, 2nd edition, 1897.
      • Woodroffe, Sir John, Is India Civilized - Essays on Indian Culture, Madras, 1919.

      Fiction

      • Forster, E.M., A Passage to India
      • Kipling, Rudyard:
        • Plain Tales from the Hills (1888, short stories)
        • The Phantom Rickshaw and other Eerie Tales (1888, short stories, containing Man Who Would Be King)
        • Departmental Ditties and Barrackroom Ballads (1890, poetry, containing Mandalay and Gunga Din)
        • The Jungle Book (1894, short stories)
        • The Second Jungle Book (1895, short stories)
        • Kim (1901, novel)
      • Masters, John
        • The Deceivers (A novel about Thuggee).
        • Nightrunners of Bengal (The Sepoy Mutiny of 1857).
        • The Lotus and the Wind (The Great Game of British and Russian spies on the Northwest Frontier).
        • Bhowani Junction (Britain's exodus and the Partition of India).
      • Orwell, George, Burmese Days
      • Scott, Paul
        • Raj Quartet comprising of:
          • The Jewel in the Crown – (1966)
          • The Day of the Scorpion – (1968)
          • The Towers of Silence – (1971)
          • A Division of the Spoils – (1975)
        • Staying On – (1977)

      External links

      • British India Website
      • The New Student's Reference Work/India (1914)
      • Images of Empire Library, Bristol, UK
      • October Offer regarding India’s constitution, of His Majesty's Government 18 October 1939
      • August Offer regarding India’s constitution, of His Majesty's Government 8 August 1940
      • British Ruled India (1757-1947) Bibliography of Books Articles and Dissertations Concentrating on 1914-1947

      v • d • e British Empire and Commonwealth of Nations

      Legend Current territory  ·   Former territory * now a Commonwealth Realm  ·   now a member of the Commonwealth of Nations Europe  18th century 1708-1757  Minorca since 1713  Gibraltar 1782-1802  Minorca 19th century 1800-1964  Malta 1807-1890  Heligoland 1809-1864  Ionian Islands 1878-1960  Cyprus 20th century since 1960  Akrotiri and Dhekelia North America  16th century 1583-1907  Newfoundland 17th century 1607-1776  Thirteen Colonies since 1619  Bermuda 1670-1870  Rupert's Land 18th century Canada (British Imperial)    1763-1791  Quebec    1791-1841  Lower Canada    1791-1841  Upper Canada 19th century Canada (British Imperial)    1841-1867  Province of Canada    1849-1866  Vancouver Island    1858-1871  British Columbia    1859-1870  North-Western Territory    1862-1863  Stikine Territory *Canada (post-Confederation)    1867-1931  Dominion of Canada1 20th century *Canada (post-Confederation)    1907-1934  Dominion of Newfoundland2 1 In 1931, Canada and other British dominions obtained self-government through the Statute of Westminster. 'Dominion' remains Canada's legal title; see Canada's name. 2 Remained a de jure dominion until 1949 (when it became a Canadian province); from 1934 to 1949, Newfoundland was governed by the Commission of Government. Latin America and the Caribbean  17th century 1605-1979  *Saint Lucia 1623-1883  Saint Kitts (*Saint Kitts & Nevis) 1624-1966  *Barbados 1625-1650  Saint Croix 1627-1979  *St. Vincent and the Grenadines 1628-1883  Nevis (*Saint Kitts & Nevis) 1629-1641  St. Andrew and Providence Islands3 since 1632  Montserrat 1632-1860  Antigua(*Antigua & Barbuda) 1643-1860  Bay Islands since 1650  Anguilla 1651-1667  Willoughbyland (Suriname) 1655-1850  Mosquito Coast (protectorate) 1655-1962  *Jamaica since 1666  British Virgin Islands since 1670  Cayman Islands 1670-1973  *Bahamas 1670-1688  St. Andrew and Providence Islands3 1671-1816  Leeward Islands 18th century 1762-1974  *Grenada 1763-1978  Dominica since 1799  Turks and Caicos Islands 19th century 1831-1966  British Guiana (Guyana) 1833-1960  Windward Islands 1833-1960  Leeward Islands 1860-1981  *Antigua and Barbuda 1871-1964  British Honduras (*Belize) 1882-1983  *St. Kitts and Nevis 1889-1962  Trinidad and Tobago 20th century 1958-1962  West Indies Federation 3 Now the San Andrés y Providencia Department of Colombia. Africa  18th century 1792-1961  Sierra Leone 1795-1803  Cape Colony 19th century 1806-1910  Cape Colony 1816-1965  Gambia 1856-1910  Natal 1868-1966  Basutoland (Lesotho) 1874-1957  Gold Coast (Ghana) 1882-1922  Egypt 1884-1966  Bechuanaland (Botswana) 1884-1960  British Somaliland 1887-1897  Zululand 1888-1894  Matabeleland 1890-1980  Southern Rhodesia (Zimbabwe) 1890-1962  Uganda 1890-1963  Zanzibar (Tanzania) 1891-1964  Nyasaland (Malawi) 1891-1907  British Central Africa 1893-1968  Swaziland 1895-1920  British East Africa 1899-1956  Anglo-Egyptian Sudan 20th century 1900-1914  Northern Nigeria 1900-1914  Southern Nigeria 1900-1910  Orange River Colony 1906-1954  Nigeria Colony 1910-1931  South Africa 1911-1964  Northern Rhodesia (Zambia) 1914-1954  Nigeria Protectorate 1915-1931  South West Africa (Namibia) 1919-1960  Cameroons (Cameroon) 4 1920-1963  Kenya 1922-1961  Tanganyika (Tanzania) 4 1954-1960  Nigeria since 1965  British Indian Ocean Territory 4 League of Nations mandate. Asia  18th century 1757-1947  Bengal (West Bengal (India) and Bangladesh) 1762-1764  Philippines 1795-1948  Ceylon (Sri Lanka) 1796-1965  Maldives 19th century 1819-1826  British Malaya (Peninsular Malaysia and Singapore) 1826-1946  Straits Settlements 1839-1967  Colony of Aden 1841-1997  Hong Kong 1841-1941  Kingdom of Sarawak (Malaysia) 1858-1947  British India (India, Pakistan and Bangladesh, Burma) 1882-1963  British North Borneo (Malaysia) 1885-1946  Unfederated Malay States 1891-1971  Muscat and Oman protectorate 1892-1971  Trucial States protectorate 1895-1946  Federated Malay States 1898-1930  Weihai Garrison 20th century 1918-1961  Kuwait protectorate 1920-1932  Iraq4 1921-1946  Transjordan4 1923-1948  Palestine4 1946-1948  Malayan Union 1946-1963  Sarawak (Malaysia) 1948-1957  Federation of Malaya (Malaysia) 4 League of Nations mandate. Oceania  18th century 1788-1901  New South Wales 1794-1843  Sandwich Islands (Hawaii) 19th century 1803-1901  Van Diemen's Land/Tasmania 1807-1863  Auckland Islands6 1824-1980  New Hebrides (Vanuatu) 1824-1901  Queensland 1829-1901  Swan River Colony/Western Australia 1836-1901  South Australia since 1838  Pitcairn Islands 1840-1907  *Colony of New Zealand 1850-1901  Victoria (Australia) 1874-1970  Fiji5 1877-1976  British Western Pacific Territories 1884-1949  Territory of Papua 1888-1965  Cook Islands6 1888-1984  Sultanate of Brunei 1889-1948  Union Islands (Tokelau)6 1892-1979  Gilbert and Ellice Islands7 1893-1978  British Solomon Islands8 20th century 1900-1970  Tonga (protected state) 1900-1974  Niue6 1901-1942  *Commonwealth of Australia 1907-1953  *Dominion of New Zealand 1919-1949  Territory of New Guinea 1949-1975  Territory of Papua and New Guinea9 5 Suspended member. 6 Now part of the *Realm of New Zealand. 7 Now Kiribati and *Tuvalu. 8 Now the *Solomon Islands. 9 Now *Papua New Guinea. Antarctica and South Atlantic  17th century since 1659  St. Helena 19th century since 1815  Ascension Island9 since 1816  Tristan da Cunha9 since 1833  Falkland Islands11 20th century since 1908  British Antarctic Territory10 since 1908  South Georgia and                     the South Sandwich Islands10, 11 9 Dependencies of St. Helena since 1922 (Ascension Island) and 1938 (Tristan da Cunha). 10 Both claimed in 1908; territories formed in 1962 (British Antarctic Territory) and 1985 (South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands). 11 Occupied by Argentina during the Falklands War of April-June 1982.

      ar:الهند البريطانية

      bg:Британска Индия cs:Britská Indie da:Britisk Indien de:Britisch-Indien es:Raj Británico eo:Brita Hindio fr:Raj britannique hi:ब्रिटिश राज id:Kemaharajaan Britania it:Raj Britannico sw:Uhindi wa Kiingereza ml:ബ്രിട്ടീഷ് രാജ് nl:Brits-Indië ja:イギリス領インド帝国 no:Britisk India nn:Britisk India pl:Indie Brytyjskie pt:Índia britânica ro:India Britanică ru:Британская Индия simple:British Raj fi:Brittiläinen Intia sv:Brittiska Indien th:บริติชราช tr:Britanya Hindistanı wuu:英属印度