India Under the British Empire: The Story of Repression and the Fight for Independence Rehan Rosha, Year 13, Churchill
British involvement in Indian affairs started as far back as 1615 when the East India Company (EIC) acquired its first territory in Bombay (present-day Mumbai). For its first century in India, the EIC was not concerned with the idea of building an empire there; instead, it was focused on trade within India and amongst the surrounding South-East Asian countries. However, the 18th century saw the gradual decline of the ruling Mughal Empire, causing the EIC to shift its focus from trade to territory. The following decades saw them rapidly gain and rule large areas of land throughout the subcontinent, either directly or indirectly, using excessive military force. The EIC started its rule over India in 1757, and by 1818, it stood as the largest governing force in India with its very own army and judiciary, functioning as a sovereign power on behalf of the British Crown. In 1833, the British Parliament passed the Slavery Abolition Act, which abolished slavery in the British Empire and compensated slave owners for the economic blow this caused. However, the act conveniently left out slavery under the East India Company. Sources suggest that the EIC began transporting and using slave labour in 1620, but this ended with the Indian Slavery Act of 1843. This act was passed under the EIC, outlawing slavery and economic transactions associated with it. As a result, the EIC stopped transporting slaves and instead started transporting indentured labourers, workers within a system of unfree labour who were bound by a forced contract (indenture). The Indian indenture system allowed two million Indians to be transported and used for slave labour around the world. The EIC alone exported over a million Indian indentured labourers to British, Dutch, and Portuguese colonies, as well as to South Africa and Trinidad & Tobago. The Indian indenture system was finally banned in 1917, long after the EIC began profiting from it. Shockingly, The Economist stated that the reason for the ban was “because of pressure from Indian nationalists and declining profitability, rather than from humanitarian concerns”. Fortunately, the EIC was dissolved in 1858 by the British government as a direct result of the Indian Rebellion of 1857. The rebellion is another example of the EIC, and Britain as a whole, violating the civil and human rights of Indians. Although both sides committed tragic atrocities, many sources note how the retaliation from the EIC was significantly worse and more gruesome than the acts committed by the Indian rebels. The EIC responded to the massacres of British women and children with acts of torture as well as sexual assault. In areas of Northern India, sources put the death toll of Indians at around 150,000, 100,000 of which were civilians. Some sources even state that British troops forced many Muslim or Hindu rebels to eat pork or beef. From this, we can see that the state of civil rights under the EIC was appalling. However, the 1858 Government of India Act passed by the Parliament meant that the British government still had the right to govern India, under the British Raj.
22 I
India Under the British Empire
The British Raj presided over India until 1947 (when India achieved independence). In this period of time, the British Raj helped advance India’s infrastructure; For example, in 1860, universities in Bombay (Mumbai), Madras (Chennai), and Calcutta were built. Additionally, railways previously built by the EIC were extended, and the construction of new canals and irrigation systems boosted the economy and the quality of life in those areas. However, rule under the British Raj was not all positive. During the First World War, the Governor-General of India passed the Defence of India Act in 1915. The act was an emergency criminal law to reduce and prevent nationalist and revolutionary activities. The act provided the executive with frighteningly broad powers: For example, they could imprison citizens without a fair trial, and restrict the writings, speech, and movement of any Indian, both of which were clearly violations of several fundamental and inalienable civil rights. If there were any positive impacts of this act, it would be that it brought Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi into the mainstream of the Indian struggle for independence. The act was succeeded by the infamous Rowlatt Acts, also known as the Black Act, which indefinitely extended the aforementioned executive powers, worsening the civil situation in India. The purpose of this act was similar to the previous one, in that it was used to curb the rapidly growing nationalist sentiments throughout India. It did this by allowing the police to arrest anybody without having to provide a reason, imprison any person suspected of terrorism for up to two years without any trial, control the press, search any facility or home and carry out arrests without warrants, and place indefinite detentions without trial. If there were to be a trial, there would be no jury, and the accused was not allowed to know who the accuser was or what evidence was being presented, completely disregarding the idea of the right to a fair trial. In addition, those who were convicted were not allowed to take part in any political, educational, or religious activities whatsoever. On 13 April 1919, Acting Brigadier-General Reginald Dwyer, convinced that there could be an uprising very soon, banned all meetings and gatherings. However, that information did not travel very far. Later that day, thousands of people gathered at the Jallianwala Bagh to celebrate the Sikh and Hindu festival of Baisakhi, and to peacefully protest the arrest and deportation of Satyapal and Saifuddin Kitchlew, two national leaders. Unfortunately, Dyer saw this as a threat and surrounded Jallianwala Bagh with his troops, blocking most of the exits. He then ordered his men to fire without warning, sending 1,650 bullets into a group of unarmed protesters. Although no detailed casualty count was carried out, a social services society estimated that at least 379 people died, with around 1,100 injured and 192 seriously injured. However, the Indian National Congress puts the death toll at 1,000 with 1,500 injured. Dyer’s actions were lauded by those who profited from the British Raj.
