Colonialism is the rule of one people over another, in which the ruling power takes control of the land, the economy and the government of the ruled for its own benefit. For nearly two hundred years, from the Battle of Plassey in 1757 to independence in 1947, India was the most important colony of the British Empire. To understand the national movement, one must first understand the system against which it was fought.
This note is the first unit of the paper on Colonialism and Nationalism in India. It explains the meaning of colonialism and how it differs from imperialism, the main theories, the way British rule was established, and the working of the colonial economy, state, education and ideology. It ends with the critiques of colonial rule which prepared the ground for nationalism. It is written for UG students, and also serves those preparing for PG, OPSC, UPSC and UGC NET.
1. Meaning and definitions
The word colony comes from the Latin colonus, meaning a farmer or settler. In modern use, colonialism means the control of one territory and its people by a foreign power, which uses the territory for its own economic, strategic and political ends. It is closely linked with imperialism, but the two words are not the same. Imperialism is the wider idea of domination of one state over others, which may be political, economic or cultural. Colonialism is a particular form of it, in which the foreign power takes direct control of the land and the government.
Summary of definitions
| Writer | Work | Main idea |
|---|---|---|
| J. A. Hobson | Imperialism: A Study (1902) | Imperialism is driven by the search of capitalists for markets and investment abroad, using state power |
| V. I. Lenin | Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism (1917) | Colonies are needed by monopoly capitalism for raw materials, markets and export of capital |
| Frantz Fanon | The Wretched of the Earth (1961) | Colonialism rests on violence and on the humiliation of the native |
| Edward Said | Culture and Imperialism (1993) | Imperialism is the practice and attitude of a ruling centre; colonialism is its settlement and rule in distant lands |
| Jürgen Osterhammel | Colonialism: A Theoretical Overview (1995) | Rule of a foreign minority over a majority, in the interest of a distant metropolis |
| Ania Loomba | Colonialism/Postcolonialism (1998) | The conquest and control of other people’s land and goods |
| Bipan Chandra | Essays on Colonialism and writings on modern India | Colonialism is a structure in which the colony’s economy is made subordinate to that of the metropolis |
Scholar-wise definitions
J. A. Hobson. The English economist Hobson argued in 1902 that modern imperialism came from the surplus capital and goods of the rich, which could not be used at home because the poor lacked purchasing power. The owners therefore pressed the state to take colonies where they could invest and sell. His account is used to explain the economic motive of colonialism.
V. I. Lenin. Lenin built on Hobson. He held that in its last stage, capitalism is controlled by monopolies and banks, that it exports capital instead of only goods, and that the great powers divide the world among themselves. Colonies in this view are the fields where finance capital earns its profit.
Frantz Fanon. Fanon, a thinker from Martinique who joined the Algerian struggle, described the colonial world as divided in two, with a settler’s world and a native’s world held apart by force. For him, colonialism is not only economic. It damages the mind of the colonised as well.
Edward Said. Said, in Culture and Imperialism, wrote that imperialism is the practice, theory and attitude of a dominating metropolitan centre ruling a distant territory, while colonialism is almost always its consequence, shown in the settlement of distant lands. In his earlier book Orientalism (1978), he showed how Western writing created an image of the East as backward, and used it to justify rule.
Jürgen Osterhammel. The German historian defined colonialism as a relationship between a majority of local people and a minority of foreign rulers in which the basic decisions about the lives of the ruled are made by the rulers, in the interest of a distant metropolis. He stressed that the rulers believe in their own right to rule.
Ania Loomba. She described colonialism as the conquest and control of other people’s land and goods. She noted that it did not take one form, because it differed from place to place, and she linked it with the rise of capitalism in Europe.
Bipan Chandra. The Indian historian explained colonialism as a structure. In his view, the colonial economy in India was changed so that it served British interests, with raw materials sent out, British goods brought in, and the decisions made in London. The idea is the basis of the nationalist and Marxist account of the Indian case.
A note to the student
The wording of these definitions differs in different books, and some are given here in substance rather than word for word. In an answer, state the idea in simple sentences, name the writer, and then link it with the Indian case. Check the exact wording in the book prescribed by your university.
What the definitions share
- Colonialism means foreign control over the land, resources and government of a people.
- It serves the interest of the ruling power, usually economic and strategic.
- It rests on force and also on beliefs of superiority.
- It shapes the economy, the state and the culture of the colony.
- It is different from imperialism, which is wider and may exist without direct rule.
2. Characteristics of colonialism
Foreign political control
The first mark of colonialism is that the final power lies with a foreign state. In India, the East India Company and, after 1858, the British Crown decided taxes, laws and wars, while Indians had little say. Even the princely states, which had their own rulers, accepted British paramountcy in matters of defence and foreign relations. In an answer, this point separates colonialism from ordinary trade or influence.
Economic exploitation
The colony is used for the benefit of the ruling country. India supplied raw materials such as cotton, jute, indigo and tea, and bought British factory goods. Revenue collected in India paid for the army, the civil service and the Home Charges in London. Dadabhai Naoroji called this the drain of wealth. A student should use this as the central economic feature.
Use of force
Colonial rule rests on military power as well as on consent. The army, mostly of Indian soldiers under British officers, was used to conquer territory and to put down revolts, as in 1857. Police and law gave the rulers day-to-day control. Without force, a small foreign minority could not have ruled a large population.
Subordination of the colonial economy to the metropolis
In a colonial economy, the structure of production is shaped by the needs of the ruling country. Handicrafts declined because of the competition of British machine-made goods, and agriculture was turned to export crops. The result was that India became a market and a source of raw materials, which is the structure Bipan Chandra described.
Racial and cultural superiority
The rulers believed that they were more civilised than the ruled. This belief took the form of racial separation in clubs, railways and courts, and of the idea that Europeans had a duty to improve the natives. The Ilbert Bill controversy of 1883, in which Europeans opposed the right of Indian judges to try them, shows how strong the feeling was.
Distant decision-making
Important decisions were taken in London by the Secretary of State for India and Parliament, and not in India. The interests of British industry often decided policy, for example the removal of import duties on cotton goods in the nineteenth century. This remote control is a feature that students can use to explain why Indians felt powerless.
Separation of rulers and ruled
The rulers lived in separate areas such as cantonments and civil lines, and kept social distance. Higher posts in the Indian Civil Service were reserved in practice for Britons for a long time. This gap prevented a shared sense of belonging between the two sides, and led to the demand for Indianisation of the services.
Divide and rule
The colonial government often used religious, caste and regional differences to keep its position. The partition of Bengal in 1905, separate electorates for Muslims in 1909, and the Communal Award of 1932 are cited as examples. A balanced answer should say that scholars differ on how far the policy was deliberate and how far it used divisions that already existed.
Selective modernisation
Colonial rule brought railways, the telegraph, a postal system, modern law and English education, but these were introduced mainly to serve imperial needs. Railways, for example, carried raw materials to ports and troops to trouble spots. The changes were real, but they were limited and uneven, so a student should avoid saying either that colonialism only destroyed or that it only built.
Cultural and ideological domination
The rulers built a body of knowledge about India, through the census, surveys, histories and the study of languages, which supported their rule. English education created a class which shared the language of the rulers. Said’s idea of Orientalism explains how knowledge and power were joined.
Change in social structure
Colonial rule created new classes, such as an English-educated middle class, zamindars and moneylenders with new powers, and a small industrial working class. Old groups such as artisans and weavers declined. This change in society is important because the new middle class later led the national movement.
Resistance and the growth of nationalism
Colonialism produced its own opposition. Tribal revolts, peasant uprisings, the Revolt of 1857 and later the modern national movement were reactions to the system. Karl Marx wrote in 1853 that the English were the unconscious tool of history in India, although they acted from the basest interests, and this remark shows that the rule also set in motion forces that undermined it.
Variation from one colony to another
Colonialism did not take one form. Settler colonies such as Algeria or Australia saw large numbers of Europeans settle on land, while in India, a small number of officials, soldiers and traders ruled a large population. A student who knows this difference can answer comparative questions with confidence.
3. Phases of colonial economic policy at a glance
Bipan Chandra’s three phases show that the method of extraction changed, from direct plunder to free trade and then to investment, while the aim of serving Britain stayed the same.
4. Theories and explanations of colonialism
Scholars have given different reasons for colonialism. A student should know the main explanations and the writers linked with each.
The liberal and civilising view
In the nineteenth century, many British writers argued that colonial rule was a trust for the benefit of the ruled. James Mill and later Thomas Babington Macaulay held that Indian society needed reform and that British rule could bring law, order and education. Rudyard Kipling’s poem The White Man’s Burden (1899) gave this idea a popular form. The theory treats colonialism as a duty, though critics say it served as an excuse for profit and power.
The utilitarian view
Utilitarian thinkers such as Jeremy Bentham and James Mill believed that good government could be created by law and administration. They influenced codes of law, the revenue system and education in India. They saw India as a country to be improved by rational rule, and were often impatient with its traditions.
Hobson’s economic theory
J. A. Hobson, in 1902, explained imperialism as the result of under-consumption at home. The surplus capital of the rich looked for outlets abroad, and the state helped it. This is the first modern economic theory of empire.
The Marxist theory
Karl Marx in the 1850s wrote about British rule in India as destructive, since it broke the old village economy, and also as creating the conditions for change through railways, the press and a modern class. Lenin developed the idea that imperialism is the highest stage of capitalism, with monopolies, banks and the export of capital. Later Marxist writers in India, such as R. P. Dutt in India Today (1940), applied this to explain deindustrialisation and the drain of wealth.
The theory of the strategic motive
Some historians argue that defence of existing possessions drove expansion more than profit. In India, the fear of French rivalry in the eighteenth century and later of Russian advance in the nineteenth is said to have led to new conquests and frontier wars. This view is linked with the idea that the empire expanded to protect the route to India.
The theory of peripheral crisis
Ronald Robinson and John Gallagher, in the article The Imperialism of Free Trade (1953) and in the book Africa and the Victorians (1961), argued that expansion was often caused by crises on the frontier of the empire rather than by plans at the centre. Their approach stresses local conditions and the role of local collaborators.
Dependency and world-system theories
Writers such as Andre Gunder Frank and Immanuel Wallerstein, in the 1960s and 1970s, argued that colonies were tied into a world economy in which the rich core developed at the cost of the poor periphery. Applied to India, the idea explains the persistence of poverty and underdevelopment after colonial rule.
Postcolonial thought
Edward Said’s Orientalism (1978) argued that European knowledge of the East served to justify rule by creating an image of the East as backward and unchanging. The Subaltern Studies group, started by Ranajit Guha in 1982, studied history from below, with attention to peasants and tribes. Their work showed that colonial rule was resisted in many ways beyond elite politics.
The nationalist theory of the drain
Dadabhai Naoroji, R. C. Dutt and Mahadev Govind Ranade, whose work is discussed later, argued that British rule was a system for taking wealth from India. This idea became the basis of the economic critique of the national movement.
Summary of theories
| Theory | Main writers | Main claim |
|---|---|---|
| Liberal and civilising | James Mill, Macaulay, Kipling | Rule is a trust for improvement |
| Utilitarian | Bentham, James Mill | Reform through law and administration |
| Economic (under-consumption) | J. A. Hobson | Surplus capital seeks outlets abroad |
| Marxist | Marx, Lenin, R. P. Dutt | Capitalism needs colonies; both destruction and change |
| Strategic | Historians of frontier policy | Defence of empire drives expansion |
| Peripheral crisis | Robinson and Gallagher | Crises at the edge cause expansion |
| Dependency and world-system | Frank, Wallerstein | Core develops at the cost of the periphery |
| Postcolonial | Said, Subaltern Studies | Knowledge and culture served power |
| Nationalist | Naoroji, R. C. Dutt | Drain of wealth |
5. The establishment of British rule in India
British rule was not set up at one time. It grew by stages over about a century, from trade, to political power in Bengal, to control of the whole subcontinent.
European trading companies
The Portuguese arrived first, reaching Calicut in 1498 under Vasco da Gama. The Dutch, the English, the French and others followed. The English East India Company received its charter from Queen Elizabeth in 1600, set up trading posts at Surat, Madras, Bombay and Calcutta, and for a long time acted as a trader. Rivalry among the companies, and the weakening of the Mughal empire after the death of Aurangzeb in 1707, opened the way for political involvement.
The Anglo-French rivalry in the south
The Carnatic Wars (1746 to 1763) between the English and the French, fought with the help of local rulers, ended with the defeat of the French at Wandiwash in 1760 and the Treaty of Paris in 1763. The wars showed that European-trained and European-led troops, called sepoys, could defeat larger Indian armies, and that the companies could use disputes among Indian rulers.
Plassey and Buxar
In June 1757, Robert Clive defeated Nawab Siraj-ud-Daula of Bengal at Plassey, helped by the betrayal of his commander Mir Jafar. The battle gave the Company control of Bengal in practice, and its wealth supported the Company’s later wars. In 1764, at Buxar, the Company defeated the combined armies of Mir Qasim of Bengal, Shuja-ud-Daula of Awadh and the Mughal emperor Shah Alam II. In 1765, by the Treaty of Allahabad, the Company obtained the diwani, the right to collect revenue, in Bengal, Bihar and Orissa. This made it a ruler in all but name.
Expansion by war and alliance
The Company expanded in several ways. Wars against Mysore (four wars between 1767 and 1799, ending with the death of Tipu Sultan), the Marathas (three wars between 1775 and 1818) and the Sikhs (two wars, ending in 1849) removed the main rivals. Smaller states were brought in by treaty and pressure.
The Subsidiary Alliance
Lord Wellesley, Governor-General from 1798 to 1805, used the Subsidiary Alliance. A state which accepted it had to keep a British force at its own cost, had to accept a British Resident at its court, could not deal with other powers without British consent, and could not employ other Europeans. In return, it was promised protection. Hyderabad, Mysore, Awadh and others accepted, and lost their independence in effect.
The Doctrine of Lapse
Lord Dalhousie, Governor-General from 1848 to 1856, applied the Doctrine of Lapse, under which a state without a natural heir would pass to the Company if the ruler died, and an adopted heir would not be accepted. Satara, Jhansi, Nagpur and some others were annexed in this way. Awadh was annexed in 1856 on the ground of misgovernment. These actions raised fear and anger among rulers and their followers.
Paramountcy and the princely states
After 1858, the Crown ceased to annex states and treated the rulers as allies under its supremacy, called paramountcy. About 560 princely states remained, covering about two-fifths of the area of the subcontinent, and were controlled through Residents. Their position became a main question at the time of independence.
The Revolt of 1857
In May 1857, the sepoys at Meerut rose, and the revolt spread over north and central India. Its causes were many: political (annexations, Doctrine of Lapse), economic (heavy taxes, loss of land), social and religious (fear for caste and faith, as with the greased cartridges for the Enfield rifle) and military (low pay and discrimination). The revolt was put down by 1858. Its main results were the end of the Company’s rule, the Government of India Act of 1858, the Queen’s Proclamation of November 1858 with its promise of respect for rights and religion, and a reorganisation of the army.
Summary of the stages of conquest
| Event | Year | Significance |
|---|---|---|
| Arrival of Vasco da Gama at Calicut | 1498 | Start of European sea trade |
| Charter of the English East India Company | 1600 | Beginning of English trade |
| Battle of Plassey | 1757 | Political control of Bengal |
| Battle of Buxar and the diwani | 1764 and 1765 | Right to collect revenue |
| Subsidiary Alliance | 1798 onwards | Loss of independence of states |
| Fall of Tipu Sultan | 1799 | End of the main southern rival |
| Defeat of the Marathas | 1818 | Control of western and central India |
| Annexation of Punjab | 1849 | Last major conquest |
| Doctrine of Lapse | 1848 to 1856 | Annexation by lack of heirs |
| Revolt and the Act of 1858 | 1857 and 1858 | Rule passes to the Crown |
6. The colonial economy
The economic side of colonialism is the most important part of the unit. The nationalist and Marxist historians see it as the base of the whole system. Bipan Chandra divided the economic policy into three phases, which are used widely in textbooks.
Three phases of colonial economic policy
Mercantile phase (1757 to 1813). The Company used its political power to buy Indian goods cheaply, mainly textiles, and to send revenue surplus home. Money collected in Bengal was used to purchase goods for export, so that no silver came in for them. This is called the direct plunder phase.
Free trade or industrial capitalism phase (1813 to 1858). The Charter Act of 1813 ended the Company’s trade monopoly, except in tea and China trade. British machine-made cloth entered India with low duties, while Indian cloth faced high duties in Britain. India became a market for British goods and a source of raw materials like cotton, indigo and jute.
Finance capital phase (1858 to 1947). After 1858, British investment in railways, plantations, mining and banking grew, with guaranteed profit, and India’s trade surplus was used to pay for the Home Charges. Later, some Indian industry was allowed to grow, but it was still limited.
Land revenue systems
Land revenue was the main source of government income, and the Company tried different methods in different regions.
Permanent Settlement (1793). Introduced by Lord Cornwallis in Bengal, Bihar and Orissa, it fixed the revenue to be paid by zamindars permanently and made them owners of land. The state gained steady income. The zamindars often lived in towns, and the cultivators were left with little protection, while the Company lost the benefit of the increase in output.
Ryotwari system. Associated with Thomas Munro and Alexander Read, it was applied in Madras and Bombay from the early nineteenth century. The settlement was made directly with the cultivator, and the revenue was revised periodically. In practice, the assessment was heavy, and moneylenders gained power.
Mahalwari system. Introduced in the North-Western Provinces, parts of Punjab and central India from 1822 and developed in 1833, it made the village or estate (the mahal) responsible for revenue.
The drain of wealth
Dadabhai Naoroji, in the book Poverty and Un-British Rule in India (1901), argued that a part of India’s wealth was transferred to Britain without any return. The drain included salaries and pensions of British officials, interest on public debt, profit of foreign companies, and the cost of the army and of the India Office, called Home Charges. R. C. Dutt, in The Economic History of India (1902 to 1904), supported this argument. Some later economists have questioned the size of the drain, but it remains a central part of the nationalist account.
Deindustrialisation
Before British rule, India was a major exporter of cotton and silk goods, such as the fine muslin of Dacca. With the rise of the factory system in Britain, and with duties which favoured British goods, Indian handicrafts declined in the nineteenth century. Artisans moved back to the land, which increased pressure on agriculture. The scale of this process is debated, since some crafts survived, but historians agree that the effect on weavers and artisans was severe.
Commercialisation of agriculture
The growing of crops for the market, such as cotton, jute, indigo, opium, tea and wheat, increased. Peasants often grew these crops under pressure or because they needed cash to pay the revenue. The indigo planters of Bengal forced growers to plant it at low prices, which led to the Indigo Revolt of 1859 to 1860. Because cash crops depended on world prices, peasants were affected by price falls, and they borrowed from moneylenders, which led to the Deccan Riots of 1875.
Famines
Famines were frequent in the colonial period, as in 1876 to 1878, 1896 to 1897, 1899 to 1900 and in Bengal in 1943. Critics said that the cause was not only failure of rain but also the loss of food reserves, export of grain and weak relief. The government set up Famine Commissions, such as that of 1880 under Richard Strachey, and framed a Famine Code, but relief remained inadequate by the standards of need.
Railways
The first railway line ran from Bombay to Thane in 1853. By 1947 India had a large network. Railways united markets and helped administration, and they carried troops. At the same time they were built with guaranteed returns to British investors, used British steel and equipment, and mainly linked the ports to the interior, so that raw materials went out and goods came in. Nationalists criticised them as a burden, while others stress the real benefits.
The growth of modern Indian industry
Cotton mills at Bombay from 1854 and jute mills in Bengal from 1855 were early modern industries. Tata Iron and Steel Company was set up in 1907. Indian capitalists grew in strength, but colonial policy gave little tariff protection until the 1920s, and India remained mainly agricultural.
Summary of the colonial economy
| Feature | Main points | Effect |
|---|---|---|
| Mercantile phase | Plunder of Bengal; purchase of goods with revenue | Capital drained |
| Free trade phase | Open market for British goods | Decline of handicrafts |
| Finance capital phase | Railways, plantations, banks | Profit transferred abroad |
| Land revenue | Permanent, ryotwari and mahalwari systems | Insecurity of cultivators |
| Drain of wealth | Home Charges, salaries, interest | Loss of resources |
| Commercialisation | Cash crops for export | Dependence on world prices |
| Famines | Repeated in 1876 to 1878, 1896 to 1900, 1943 | Loss of life; criticism of policy |
7. The colonial state and administration
The colonial state was built to keep order, collect revenue and protect British interests, and it changed in stages. It was an authoritarian state with limited steps towards representation.
The constitutional stages
Regulating Act (1773). It created the post of Governor-General of Bengal, with a Council, and a Supreme Court at Calcutta. It was the first step by which Parliament began to control the Company.
Pitt’s India Act (1784). It set up a Board of Control in London to supervise the Company’s political affairs, and so created a system of dual control.
Charter Acts (1813, 1833, 1853). The Act of 1813 ended the Company’s trade monopoly with India and made provision for education. The Act of 1833 ended its trade altogether and made the Governor-General of India the single authority for legislation, with a Law Member. The Act of 1853 provided open competition for the civil service.
Government of India Act (1858). After the revolt, the Crown took over the government. The Company was ended, a Secretary of State for India with a Council in London was created, and the Governor-General became the Viceroy.
Indian Councils Acts (1861, 1892, 1909). The Act of 1861 allowed Indians to be nominated to the Legislative Councils. The Act of 1892 allowed indirect election and a right to discuss the budget. The Morley-Minto Reforms of 1909 expanded the councils and gave separate electorates for Muslims.
Government of India Act (1919). The Montagu-Chelmsford reforms introduced dyarchy in the provinces, with some subjects transferred to Indian ministers and others reserved.
Government of India Act (1935). It provided for provincial autonomy and a federation, which never came into being, and it formed the base of the Constitution of independent India.
The civil services
The Indian Civil Service, called the steel frame of British rule, grew out of Cornwallis’s reforms, which raised salaries and separated commercial and administrative work. The Charter Act of 1853 provided for open competition, and the examination was held in London. Indians found it difficult to compete, since the age limit was reduced and the exam was held far away. Satyendranath Tagore became the first Indian member of the service in 1863. The demand for simultaneous examination in India was a long-standing demand of nationalists.
The army
The army was mainly composed of Indian soldiers under British officers. After 1857, the proportion of British troops was increased, artillery was kept in British hands, and recruitment from some groups, called martial races, was favoured. The army was used in India and in overseas wars, with the cost paid from Indian revenue.
The police
The Indian Police Act of 1861 created a police system under district control, which was designed for the maintenance of order and the protection of the state rather than service to the public. The district officer, called the Collector or Magistrate, combined revenue, magisterial and executive powers and was the main agent of colonial rule at the local level.
The judiciary and law
The Cornwallis Code of 1793 separated revenue and judicial functions and introduced the idea of the rule of law. The first Law Commission under Macaulay prepared the Indian Penal Code, which was enacted in 1860, and codes of procedure followed. The legal system brought uniform law and independent courts, which nationalists later used for their own ends. At the same time, Europeans enjoyed special rights, and equality before law was not applied to them in practice. The sedition provision, Section 124A, was added in 1870 and was used against nationalist leaders.
Control of the press and dissent
The Vernacular Press Act of 1878 restricted newspapers in Indian languages, and was repealed in 1881. Later measures included the Press Acts of 1908 and 1910, and the Rowlatt Act of 1919, which allowed detention without trial. These show that the government had no tolerance for criticism, in contrast to the claim of liberal rule.
Local self-government
Lord Ripon’s resolution of 1882 gave a framework for elected local boards. It was an early step towards representation, though the control of officials remained strong.
Summary of the colonial state
| Institution | Main feature | Purpose |
|---|---|---|
| Governor-General and Viceroy | Highest executive authority | Central control |
| Indian Civil Service | Steel frame, open competition from 1853 | Administration and revenue |
| Army | Indian soldiers, British officers | Conquest and order |
| Police (1861) | District-based force | Order and state security |
| Courts and codes | Uniform law, Indian Penal Code (1860) | Rule of law with racial exceptions |
| Legislative councils | Small and limited elected element | Controlled consultation |
| Press and sedition laws | Restrictions on dissent | Protection of the regime |
8. Colonial knowledge and education
Colonial rule needed knowledge of the people it ruled, and it also introduced a new kind of education. Both have been much discussed by historians. The study of colonial knowledge is linked with Edward Said’s idea of Orientalism and Michel Foucault’s idea that knowledge and power are joined.
Orientalist scholarship
Early Company officials such as Warren Hastings supported the study of Indian languages and laws, in order to rule through local custom. The Calcutta Madrasa was set up in 1781 and the Sanskrit College at Benares in 1791. Sir William Jones founded the Asiatic Society of Bengal in 1784, and scholars studied Sanskrit, Persian and Indian texts. This work revived interest in the Indian past, but it also produced a view of India as a land of ancient texts and unchanging tradition.
The Orientalist and Anglicist controversy
The Charter Act of 1813 set aside a sum of one lakh of rupees a year for education. The Orientalists, led by officials such as H. T. Prinsep, wanted to continue support to classical Indian learning. The Anglicists, with Macaulay and, among Indians, supporters such as Raja Rammohan Roy, wanted English and Western science. The question was whether to teach in classical languages, in the vernaculars or in English.
Macaulay’s Minute (1835)
Thomas Babington Macaulay, as the Law Member, wrote his Minute on Education on 2 February 1835, arguing that a single shelf of a good European library was worth the whole native literature of India, and that the aim should be to form a class of persons Indian in blood and colour, but English in taste, in opinions, in morals and in intellect. Lord William Bentinck accepted the view in March 1835, and funds were directed to English education. The Minute is quoted both as proof of contempt for Indian learning and as a practical measure to get cheap clerks.
Wood’s Despatch (1854)
Sir Charles Wood, the President of the Board of Control, sent the Despatch of 1854, called the Magna Carta of English education in India. It proposed a Department of Public Instruction in each province, universities at Calcutta, Bombay and Madras (founded in 1857), a system of schools from primary to college, grants-in-aid to private schools and teacher training. It favoured English for higher education and the vernacular for the lower stage.
Later commissions
The Hunter Commission of 1882 stressed primary and secondary education and the role of private effort. The Indian Universities Act of 1904 under Lord Curzon increased government control and was criticised by nationalists. The Sadler Commission (1917 to 1919) reviewed Calcutta University, and the Wardha scheme of 1937, led by Gandhi, proposed basic education in the mother tongue.
Effects of English education
English education created an educated middle class, which learned the ideas of liberty, equality and nationalism from Western writers such as Mill, Burke and Mazzini. This class supplied the leaders of the Indian National Congress. At the same time, education was limited to a small share of the population, with female and rural literacy low, and the language gap separated the educated from the masses. Even by the census of 1931, literacy was below 10 per cent.
The census, surveys and the classification of people
The colonial state collected information about the population by surveys, gazetteers and the census, which was held on a regular basis from 1881. The census classified people by religion, caste, tribe and language, and put them in fixed categories. Scholars such as Bernard Cohn and Nicholas Dirks argue that this made divisions more rigid, since communities that were fluid were now counted and ranked. Herbert Risley, in the census of 1901, used physical measurement to rank castes.
Writing of history
James Mill’s History of British India (1817) divided Indian history into Hindu, Muslim and British periods, and portrayed the first two as marked by despotism and decline. This scheme influenced later writers and fed the idea of religious communities as the basic units of Indian society. The Archaeological Survey, started in 1861 with Alexander Cunningham, recovered the ancient past and gave it a prominent place. Nationalist historians later challenged the Millian view.
Summary of colonial knowledge and education
| Development | Date | Significance |
|---|---|---|
| Asiatic Society of Bengal | 1784 | Orientalist study of Indian languages and texts |
| Charter Act and education grant | 1813 | State responsibility for education |
| Macaulay’s Minute | 1835 | Victory for English as medium |
| Wood’s Despatch | 1854 | Framework of the education system |
| Universities of Calcutta, Bombay, Madras | 1857 | Modern higher education |
| Regular census | From 1881 | Classification of the population |
| Indian Universities Act | 1904 | Greater government control |
9. Social and cultural impact; colonial ideology
Colonial rule changed Indian society, and it was justified by a set of ideas about the ruler’s right to rule. The two should be studied together, since the ideology explains many of the social policies.
The ideology of colonial rule
The British gave several reasons for their rule. The civilising mission held that Europe had a duty to bring progress to backward peoples. The idea of trusteeship held that the rulers governed for the benefit of the ruled until they were fit to govern themselves, a promise which was always postponed. Racial theories, which were popular in the nineteenth century, ranked peoples by supposed physical and moral traits, and placed Europeans at the top. Orientalism pictured the East as unchanging and ruled by custom, which made it seem natural that it should be ruled by outsiders. Henry Maine and others described the Indian village as a self-sufficient unit, which supported the belief that India needed a strong external government. These ideas allowed the rulers to see their own interest as a service.
Evangelical and utilitarian reform
The Charter Act of 1813 allowed Christian missionaries to work in India. Evangelicals such as Charles Grant argued that British rule should help to spread Christianity and Western morals. Utilitarians such as James Mill pressed for reform through law. Together these currents supported social reform legislation, although officials were also afraid of causing unrest and so acted with care.
Social legislation
The government passed several laws on social questions. Lord William Bentinck abolished sati in 1829 after a campaign by Raja Rammohan Roy and others. The Indian Slavery Act of 1843 ended the legal status of slavery. The Caste Disabilities Removal Act of 1850 protected the property rights of those who left their religion or caste. The Hindu Widows’ Remarriage Act of 1856 was passed after efforts by Ishwar Chandra Vidyasagar. The Age of Consent Act (1891) raised the age of consent for girls to twelve, and the Child Marriage Restraint Act, known as the Sarda Act, followed in 1929. Because the government feared opposition, many of these laws were weakly enforced, and some reformers argued that change should come from within Indian society.
Indian social reform movements as a response
The encounter with colonial rule and Western ideas led to reform movements among Indians. The Brahmo Samaj (1828) of Rammohan Roy, the Prarthana Samaj (1867), the Arya Samaj (1875) of Dayananda Saraswati, the Ramakrishna Mission (1897) of Vivekananda, the Aligarh Movement of Sir Syed Ahmad Khan (the Mohammedan Anglo-Oriental College, 1875), the Satyashodhak Samaj (1873) of Jyotiba Phule and the SNDP Yogam (1903) in Kerala belong to this wave. They reacted to colonial criticism by reform and by claiming the value of Indian traditions, and they widened the base of public life.
The effect on caste and religious identity
Scholars have argued that colonial rule changed the form of caste and religious identity. Through the census, caste was recorded and ranked, and groups began to seek better status in the rankings. Religion was used as the basis of political representation in the separate electorates of 1909 and later. Some historians, such as Bipan Chandra, regard communalism as a modern product of colonial conditions, and others stress that there were older tensions. A careful answer will accept that colonial policy and Indian politics both had a part.
Women and education
Colonial rule opened schools for girls, such as the Bethune School in Calcutta (1849), and some women entered the professions in the later decades. At the same time, the reform debate was often conducted by men, and women’s public role grew only in the twentieth century, especially in the national movement.
Tribal communities and forests
Colonial forest laws, such as the Indian Forest Act of 1865 and its revision in 1878, took control of forests, restricted shifting cultivation and the use of forest produce, and made tribal communities dependent on outsiders. Outside moneylenders and traders entered tribal areas. These changes led to uprisings such as the Santhal Hul of 1855 to 1856 and the Munda rising under Birsa Munda in 1899 to 1900.
Press, printing and public opinion
The printing press, newspapers and books in Indian languages grew from the early nineteenth century. Papers such as the Amrita Bazar Patrika, The Hindu and Kesari became voices of public opinion. This created a public sphere in which Indians could discuss common problems and criticise government.
New social classes
Colonial society had zamindars, plantation owners, merchants, moneylenders, a growing educated middle class of lawyers, teachers, journalists and clerks, and an industrial working class in Bombay, Calcutta and elsewhere. The middle class provided the early leadership of the national movement, and workers and peasants joined it later.
Summary of social and cultural impact
| Area | Colonial policy or effect | Indian response |
|---|---|---|
| Ideology | Civilising mission, trusteeship, racial theory | Critique by nationalists and reformers |
| Social reform | Laws against sati and on widow remarriage | Brahmo Samaj, Arya Samaj, Phule |
| Religion and caste | Census classification; separate electorates | Rise of community politics |
| Women | Girls’ schools; social laws | Reform debates; later political role |
| Tribes | Forest laws; outside moneylenders | Santhal and Munda revolts |
| Press | Growth of newspapers | Public opinion and political criticism |
| Classes | Middle class, working class, landlords | New leadership and organisations |
10. Critiques of colonialism and the rise of nationalism
Colonial rule produced its own opposition. Bipan Chandra stated that the main contradiction of the colonial period was between the interests of the Indian people and those of the colonial rulers. This section explains how that contradiction was expressed, from early revolts to the first economic critique, and how it led to the national movement.
Early resistance
Several risings took place before the modern national movement. These include the Sanyasi and Fakir revolts in Bengal (about 1763 to 1800), the resistance of Tipu Sultan, the rising of the Poligars in the south, the Kol and Santhal revolts in eastern India, and the Wahabi movement. They were often led by displaced chiefs, peasants and tribal groups, and they were local, but they show that colonial rule was resisted from the beginning.
Peasant uprisings
The Indigo Revolt of 1859 to 1860 in Bengal, the Pabna agrarian leagues of 1873, the Deccan Riots of 1875 against moneylenders, and later the Mappila revolts of Malabar (1921) were peasant protests against rent, debt and the power of landlords and planters. They were mostly directed at local oppressors rather than at the colonial state as a whole, but they were part of the same system.
The Revolt of 1857
The Revolt of 1857 was the largest challenge to British rule in the nineteenth century. Vinayak Damodar Savarkar called it the First War of Independence in his book of 1909, a view followed by many nationalists. R. C. Majumdar argued that it was not a national or first war of independence, since it lacked unity and a common leadership, while S. N. Sen defended a more political reading. Marxist writers such as P. C. Joshi stressed the role of peasants and soldiers. The debate shows the difficulty of giving the revolt one name.
The early reformers and the first critics
Raja Rammohan Roy criticised press restrictions in 1823 and 1835 and argued for rights of Indians, while using English education. The associations formed in the middle of the nineteenth century, such as the British Indian Association (1851) and the Bombay Association (1852), sent petitions to Parliament. These groups wanted reforms, not the end of British rule.
The economic critique: the drain theory
The economic nationalists provided the first detailed critique. Dadabhai Naoroji spoke of the drain of wealth from the 1860s, and his book Poverty and Un-British Rule in India (1901) estimated Indian income per head. Mahadev Govind Ranade, in his Essays on Indian Economics (1898), argued for state support for industry. R. C. Dutt, in The Economic History of India (1902 to 1904), showed the decline of Indian manufactures and the burden of revenue. William Digby’s Prosperous British India (1901) gave a British voice to the criticism. G. Subramania Iyer and G. K. Gokhale also took part.
The key finding was that the poverty of India came from British policy and not from the character of the people. This idea provided a shared cause for Indians of all regions and was used in the later swadeshi movement.
Political associations and the Indian National Congress
The Indian Association was founded by Surendranath Banerjea in 1876, and the Indian National Congress in December 1885 at Bombay, with A. O. Hume playing a part in its formation and W. C. Bonnerjee as its first president. The early Congress, led by the Moderates, asked for greater share in administration, Indianisation of services, reduction of military expenditure and reform of the councils. They used petitions and resolutions, in the faith that British justice could be won over.
How colonialism produced nationalism
Several historians, including Bipan Chandra, hold that the national movement grew out of colonial conditions. The main causes were:
- the economic exploitation which affected peasants, artisans and the middle class;
- the political and administrative unification of the country, which created a common frame;
- the railways, telegraph and post, which linked regions;
- the English-educated middle class, which learned modern ideas of liberty and nation;
- the press, which created public opinion;
- racial discrimination, as in the Ilbert Bill controversy of 1883, which showed that equality was denied;
- and the policies of Lord Lytton (the Vernacular Press Act and the Arms Act of 1878) and Lord Curzon (the partition of Bengal in 1905), which provoked anger.
Different views on the origin of nationalism
The nationalist view sees the movement as a struggle of the people against foreign rule. The Cambridge School, with writers such as Anil Seal and Judith Brown, argued that early Indian politics was a competition among elites for jobs and power, using patronage. The Marxist view, as in A. R. Desai’s Social Background of Indian Nationalism (1948), explained nationalism as the result of the rise of a capitalist class and the change in social structure. The Subaltern Studies group stressed the role of peasants and workers, apart from elite leaders. A student should know these views and their writers.
Summary of resistance and critique
| Form | Examples | Main point |
|---|---|---|
| Tribal and peasant revolts | Santhal Hul, Indigo Revolt, Deccan Riots, Munda Ulgulan | Local protest against revenue, debt and forest control |
| Revolt of 1857 | Meerut to Delhi, Kanpur, Lucknow, Jhansi | Widest challenge to the Company |
| Early associations | British Indian Association, Indian Association | Petitions for reform |
| Economic nationalism | Naoroji, Ranade, R. C. Dutt | Drain theory; poverty as policy |
| Indian National Congress | 1885 | All-India platform for demands |
11. Importance and limitations of the study of colonialism
The study of colonialism is the base of the paper on Colonialism and Nationalism in India. It also has limits, which examiners often ask about in questions that start with the word “critically”.
Importance
It explains the origin of the national movement. The movement arose out of the conditions created by colonial rule: economic distress, political exclusion, racial insult and the unity brought by communications and education. Without the study of colonialism, the national movement seems to appear without cause.
It explains India’s economic condition at independence. The low level of industry, the weak agriculture, the poor literacy and the heavy poverty in 1947 were in large part products of colonial policy. The planning and development policy of the early republic can be understood only against this background.
It explains the structure of the modern Indian state. The civil service, the police, the army, the legal system and the Government of India Act of 1935 were colonial inheritances which were adapted in the Constitution. Students can see both continuity and change in these institutions.
It helps to understand colonial knowledge and its effect. Surveys, the census and histories shaped the way Indians and others see caste, religion and the past. This study helps to question categories that are taken for granted.
It explains the rise of social reform and new ideas. The reform movements, the press and the new middle class were responses to colonial rule and Western ideas. The study shows how Indians selected, changed and resisted those ideas.
It provides the base for studying theories of imperialism. Hobson, Lenin, Said and the dependency thinkers are tested against the Indian case. Students learn how theory and evidence work together.
It explains the foreign policy of independent India. Anti-colonialism, support for the freedom of other colonies, and wariness of foreign influence in the neighbourhood have roots in the colonial experience. This links the paper with international relations.
It explains border and princely state questions. Many present boundaries, such as the Durand Line and the McMahon Line, and the integration of the princely states in 1947, are products of colonial policy.
It trains the skill of using historical sources. The student must read official records, petitions, speeches and the works of economists, and weigh them against each other. This is a skill useful in all social sciences.
It prepares for examinations. The unit gives material for questions in the UG paper, PG courses, OPSC and UPSC modern history and UGC NET, where Plassey, the drain, Wood’s Despatch and the Acts of 1858, 1909, 1919 and 1935 are often asked.
Limitations
The nationalist account can be one-sided. The stress on exploitation may overlook the real benefits of railways, law and education, or the role of Indian groups who cooperated with the rulers. A balanced view needs both sides.
It may treat colonial rule as a single block. British policy changed over time and varied by region. The period of the Company, the period after 1858 and the period after 1919 differ, and the experience of Bengal differed from that of Punjab or Madras.
The size of the drain is disputed. Naoroji’s figures were estimates, and later economists, such as Morris D. Morris and others, argued that the effect of British rule on growth was smaller than claimed. The student must note that the question is still debated.
It may treat Indians as passive. An account that concentrates on policy may give less space to the agency of Indian peasants, workers, women and tribal communities who shaped events in their own ways.
Sources are mostly colonial. Much of the record was produced by the rulers, with their own assumptions, and it may not show the views of ordinary Indians. Historians must read these records critically.
It may ignore pre-colonial change. Eighteenth-century India was not static, and the Mughal decline and the rise of regional states affected the course of conquest. Treating India as unchanging before 1757 is an error.
It may exaggerate the role of ideas such as divide and rule. The claim that all divisions were created by the British does not take account of older social differences. Historians now stress the interplay of colonial policy and Indian politics.
Theories do not fit all cases. Models drawn from other colonies, such as African settler colonies, may not suit India, where a small foreign group ruled a large population by using local institutions.
The debates are affected by present politics. Views about colonial rule are used in current arguments on nationalism, religion and development, and students should be careful to separate evidence from opinion.
Counterfactual claims cannot be tested. Statements about what India would have achieved without colonial rule cannot be proved. They are useful for argument but not for conclusions.
Illustrations
| Theme | Illustration | What it shows |
|---|---|---|
| Political control | Battle of Plassey (1757); diwani (1765) | Trade becomes rule |
| Economic exploitation | Drain of wealth; Home Charges | Transfer of resources abroad |
| Land revenue | Permanent Settlement (1793) | Fixed demand; rise of the zamindar |
| Deindustrialisation | Decline of Dacca muslin | Competition with British machine goods |
| State structure | Indian Civil Service; Police Act (1861) | Steel frame of colonial rule |
| Knowledge | Macaulay’s Minute (1835); census from 1881 | Education and classification as tools of rule |
| Ideology | Civilising mission; Kipling (1899) | Moral justification of empire |
| Resistance | Revolt of 1857; Indigo Revolt (1859 to 1860) | Protest from below |
| Critique | Naoroji, R. C. Dutt | Economic basis of nationalism |
12. Use in examinations
What examiners expect
| Examination | Typical expectation | How to answer |
|---|---|---|
| UG semester paper (Core V) | Meaning, features, phases and effects of colonialism in India | Definition, scholar, five or six points with dates and examples |
| PG (MA History and Political Science) | Theories and historiography | Name schools; compare the nationalist, Marxist, Cambridge and subaltern views |
| OPSC (OCS and OAS Mains) | Economic, social and political impact | Introduction, themes, evidence, balanced conclusion |
| UPSC Mains (GS Paper 1) | Effects of colonial rule on Indian economy and society | Facts, causes, effects and a critical comment |
| UGC NET (History and Political Science) | Authors, acts, dates, concepts | Know Acts, commissions, writers and their works |
Practice questions
- Define colonialism and distinguish it from imperialism.
- Explain the main features of colonial rule in India.
- Discuss the theories of the drain of wealth with reference to Naoroji and R. C. Dutt.
- Examine the effect of colonial land revenue policy on Indian agriculture.
- Assess the role of education policy, from Macaulay to Wood’s Despatch, in shaping colonial India.
- Discuss how colonial rule gave rise to Indian nationalism.
- “Colonialism was both destructive and creative.” Critically examine this view.
Structured outline for a long answer
Question: Examine the economic impact of colonial rule on India.
Introduction
- Define colonialism and state that its main aim was economic benefit of Britain.
- Mention the three phases of colonial economic policy.
Body
- Land revenue systems and their effects on cultivators.
- Drain of wealth and the arguments of Naoroji and Dutt.
- Deindustrialisation and the decline of handicrafts.
- Commercialisation of agriculture, indebtedness and famines.
- Railways, plantations and limited modern industry.
Conclusion
- The economy was shaped to serve British interests, though some modern elements came as by-products.
- The economic critique became the base of nationalism.
Sample answer (about 200 words)
Introduction. Colonialism is the control of one people by another for the economic and political benefit of the ruler. In India, British policy passed through mercantile, free trade and finance capital phases, and in each, the economy served British interest.
Body. Land revenue policy, such as the Permanent Settlement of 1793, the ryotwari and the mahalwari systems, imposed a heavy and rigid demand and made the cultivator insecure. Dadabhai Naoroji and R. C. Dutt argued that a part of India’s wealth was drained to Britain through Home Charges, salaries and profits. After 1813, cheap British goods came in with low duties, which hurt weavers and artisans, so that handicrafts declined and more people depended on land. Agriculture was commercialised, and peasants grew cash crops and fell into debt, which led to revolts such as the Deccan Riots of 1875. Famines in 1876 to 1878 and 1896 to 1900 revealed the weakness of relief. Railways and plantations were built, but they chiefly served British trade and investment.
Conclusion. Colonial rule left India poor and agricultural, though it also brought railways, law and education as by-products. The critique of its economic effects supplied the main argument of the early national movement.
Quick check
- Which battle of 1757 gave the Company control of Bengal?
- Who introduced the Permanent Settlement and in which year?
- Name the writer of Poverty and Un-British Rule in India.
- Which despatch of 1854 laid down the framework of education?
- What is the difference between colonialism and imperialism?
Common mistakes
- Using the terms colonialism and imperialism as if they were identical.
- Giving only the negative or only the positive effects of colonial rule.
- Mixing up the Permanent, ryotwari and mahalwari systems.
- Writing dates and names of Acts from memory without checking.
- Leaving out the link between colonial rule and the rise of nationalism.
- Ending with a conclusion which only repeats the introduction.
13. Critical analysis
Did colonialism destroy or modernise?
The oldest debate is between those who see colonial rule as a drain on India and those who see it as a force of modernisation. Nationalist and Marxist historians, such as Bipan Chandra and R. P. Dutt, stress exploitation, deindustrialisation and poverty. Some British and later writers stress railways, law, administration and education. Karl Marx held both views, in calling British rule destructive and also regenerating. A balanced answer should say that colonial rule did bring new institutions, but they were not designed for Indian development, and their benefits were limited and unequal.
The size and effect of the drain
Naoroji’s estimate of a large drain has been questioned. Critics argue that Britain also invested in India and that the transfer was a small share of national income. Supporters reply that the drain meant the loss of resources which could have been invested at home, and that the Home Charges were paid without return. The question is partly one of method, since different assumptions give different numbers.
How far did colonial policy create divisions?
The nationalist view holds that the British followed a policy of divide and rule, through the census, separate electorates and encouragement of communal politics. Some historians argue that this exaggerates the foreign hand and ignores older social divisions. Most recent writers accept that colonial policies hardened and politicised identities which were previously more fluid.
Colonial knowledge and its limits
Edward Said’s argument that Orientalist writing served power has been very influential. Critics note that Said wrote mostly about the Middle East, and that British scholars in India sometimes admired Indian learning and worked with Indian scholars. The view in India is that colonial knowledge was neither wholly false nor wholly neutral.
Collaboration and resistance
Colonial rule depended on the cooperation of Indian soldiers, officials, landlords and princes. The study of collaboration, associated with Robinson and Gallagher, shows that empire could not have lasted otherwise. The study of resistance, from tribal revolts to the national movement, shows the other side. A fuller account includes both.
Schools of historiography
The main schools are the imperialist (which defended British rule), the nationalist (which stressed exploitation and the unity of the people), the Marxist (which used class analysis), the Cambridge School (which stressed elite competition and patronage) and the Subaltern school (which studied the actions of the lower classes). Each has made a contribution, and each has been criticised, for example the Cambridge School for treating nationalism as a mere struggle for office.
Theory and the Indian case
Lenin’s theory of imperialism, based on the export of capital, fits the finance capital phase after 1858 better than the earlier period, when the main aim was trade and revenue. Hobson’s theory explains the economic motive but not all conquests. The strategic theory explains frontier wars. No single theory covers the whole of British rule, so an eclectic approach is preferred.
Model concluding paragraph
Colonial rule in India was a system in which the economy, the state and the culture of the country were shaped by the needs of Britain. It brought a unified administration, modern law, railways and English education, but these served imperial ends, and the costs were borne by Indian peasants, artisans and workers. The system also produced its own opposition, as the economic critique of Naoroji and Dutt, the educated middle class and the common experience of subjection led to the growth of nationalism. Historians still differ on the size of the drain, the role of divide and rule and the part played by Indian cooperation, but they agree that colonial rule changed the history of India deeply.
14. UGC NET: authors and books
The following works are often named in syllabi and reading lists. Check the edition and exact title before citing them in an answer.
| Author | Work | Relevance |
|---|---|---|
| Dadabhai Naoroji | Poverty and Un-British Rule in India (1901) | Drain theory |
| R. C. Dutt | The Economic History of India (1902 to 1904) | Economic critique of British rule |
| M. G. Ranade | Essays on Indian Economics (1898) | Case for state help to industry |
| William Digby | Prosperous British India (1901) | British critic of Indian poverty |
| R. P. Dutt | India Today (1940) | Marxist account of colonial economy |
| A. R. Desai | Social Background of Indian Nationalism (1948) | Marxist view of social roots of nationalism |
| Bipan Chandra | The Rise and Growth of Economic Nationalism in India; India’s Struggle for Independence | Nationalist and colonial economy |
| Sumit Sarkar | Modern India 1885-1947 (1983) | Social and political history of the period |
| Edward Said | Orientalism (1978); Culture and Imperialism (1993) | Colonial knowledge and culture |
| Bernard Cohn | Colonialism and Its Forms of Knowledge (1996) | Census, surveys and colonial knowledge |
| Ranajit Guha | Elementary Aspects of Peasant Insurgency in Colonial India (1983) | Subaltern view of revolts |
| Anil Seal | The Emergence of Indian Nationalism (1968) | Cambridge School view |
| J. A. Hobson | Imperialism: A Study (1902) | Economic theory of empire |
| Frantz Fanon | The Wretched of the Earth (1961) | Psychology and violence of colonialism |
Revision tip
Make a one-page chart with four columns: theme, key year, key writer, key idea. Cover the conquest (1757 to 1858), the economy (the three phases, the land revenue systems and the drain), the state (the Acts from 1773 to 1935), education (1813, 1835, 1854), and the critique (Naoroji, Dutt, Ranade). Then learn the schools of historiography with one name for each. NET questions often ask for matching of writers with books, so revise the table above from memory.
15. Takeaways, sources and further reading
Key takeaways
- Colonialism is the foreign control of a people’s land, economy and government for the benefit of the ruling power, and it differs from imperialism, which is wider.
- British rule in India was built in stages: Plassey (1757), Buxar and the diwani (1764 to 1765), the Subsidiary Alliance, the Doctrine of Lapse, and the transfer to the Crown in 1858.
- The colonial economy passed through mercantile, free trade and finance capital phases, with land revenue systems, the drain of wealth, deindustrialisation and famines.
- The colonial state was based on the civil service, the army, the police and a system of law, with limited representation introduced through the Acts of 1861, 1892, 1909, 1919 and 1935.
- Colonial knowledge and education, including Macaulay’s Minute and Wood’s Despatch, created both an educated middle class and new classifications of people.
- Colonialism produced its own critique, in the drain theory and in the rise of nationalism.
- Historians differ on destruction versus modernisation, the size of the drain and the role of divide and rule.
Official sources
- National Archives of India
- Constitution of India, Legislative Department
- Press Information Bureau
- Parliament of India (Sansad)
- Ministry of Culture, Government of India
- Archaeological Survey of India
- eGyanKosh, IGNOU
Twenty books for further reading
- Bipan Chandra, India’s Struggle for Independence.
- Bipan Chandra, The Rise and Growth of Economic Nationalism in India.
- Bipan Chandra, Essays on Colonialism.
- Sumit Sarkar, Modern India 1885-1947.
- Dadabhai Naoroji, Poverty and Un-British Rule in India.
- R. C. Dutt, The Economic History of India.
- R. P. Dutt, India Today.
- A. R. Desai, Social Background of Indian Nationalism.
- Sekhar Bandyopadhyay, From Plassey to Partition and After.
- Burton Stein, A History of India.
- C. A. Bayly, Indian Society and the Making of the British Empire.
- Edward Said, Orientalism.
- Edward Said, Culture and Imperialism.
- Bernard Cohn, Colonialism and Its Forms of Knowledge.
- Ranajit Guha, Elementary Aspects of Peasant Insurgency in Colonial India.
- Anil Seal, The Emergence of Indian Nationalism.
- Ania Loomba, Colonialism/Postcolonialism.
- Frantz Fanon, The Wretched of the Earth.
- Shashi Tharoor, Inglorious Empire: What the British Did to India.
- Tirthankar Roy, The Economic History of India, 1857-2010.
Editorial note
This note is prepared for study and general information. We try to rely on official and standard academic sources, but facts, dates and policies change. If you find an error or wish to suggest an improvement, please write to us through the Contact page. Please read our Disclaimer before using the material for any examination or official purpose.
Frequently asked questions
What is colonialism? It is the rule of one people over another in which the ruler controls the land, economy and government of the ruled for its own benefit.
How is colonialism different from imperialism? Imperialism is the wider idea of domination of one state over others and may be economic, political or cultural. Colonialism is a form of it, with direct control and often settlement.
What were the three phases of colonial economic policy? The mercantile phase (1757 to 1813), the free trade phase (1813 to 1858) and the finance capital phase (1858 to 1947), as set out by Bipan Chandra.
What is the drain of wealth? It is the idea, put forward by Dadabhai Naoroji and R. C. Dutt, that a part of India’s wealth was transferred to Britain without a return.
Which land revenue systems were used? The Permanent Settlement (1793) with zamindars, the ryotwari system with cultivators, and the mahalwari system with villages or estates.
How did colonialism lead to nationalism? By economic distress, political exclusion, racial discrimination, the unity brought by communications, the English-educated middle class and the press.
