The British Raj

27.3.2: The British Raj

In the aftermath of the Indian Rebellion of 1857, the British government dissolved the East India Company and established the formal colonial rule in India that would become known as the British Raj.

Learning Objective

Explain why the British Raj was established in India

Key Points

  • The control of rich Bengal gained in the aftermath of the Battle of Plassey brought India into the public spotlight in Britain, and Parliament established regulations to manage the affairs of the East India Company. Although some wanted the Company’s territories to be taken over by the British state, the eventual compromise asserted that the Company could act as a sovereign power on behalf of the Crown while subject to oversight and regulation by the British government and parliament.
  • Under the terms of The Charter Act of 1833, the British Parliament revoked the Company’s trade license, which made the Company a part of British governance, but administration of British India remained the responsibility Company officers. The Act also charged the Governor-General-in-Council (to whose title was now added “of India”) with the supervision of civil and military administration of India as well as the exclusive power of legislation.
  • After the Indian Rebellion of 1857, the British government took control of the Company. All power was transferred from the EIC to the British Crown, which began to administer most of India as a number of provinces. The Crown controlled the Company’s lands directly and had considerable indirect influence over the rest of India. What followed became known as the British Raj: the rule of the British Crown in the Indian subcontinent between 1858 and 1947.
  • The Government of India Act 1858 made changes in the governance of India at three levels: in the imperial government in London, in the central government in Calcutta, and in the provincial governments in the presidencies (and later in the provinces). In London, it provided for a cabinet-level Secretary of State for India and a fifteen-member Council of India. In Calcutta, the Governor-General remained head of the Government of India, commonly called the Viceroy.
  • If the Government of India needed to enact new laws, it followed the decisions of a Legislative Council, half of which consisted of British officials with voting power and half comprised Indians and domiciled Britons in India who served only in an advisory capacity. All laws enacted by Legislative Councils in India required the final assent of the Secretary of State in London. This prompted Sir Charles Wood, the second Secretary of State, to describe the Government of India as “a despotism controlled from home.”
  • A princely state was a semi-sovereign principality during the British Raj that was not directly governed by the British, but rather by a local ruler. The princely states varied greatly in status, size, and wealth. Their courts existed under the authority of the respective rulers. The British controlled the external affairs of the princely states absolutely. As the states were not British possessions, however, they retained control over their own internal affairs, subject to a degree of British influence which in many states was substantial.

Key Terms

princely state
A semi-sovereign principality on the Indian subcontinent during the British Raj that was not directly governed by the British, but rather by a local ruler, subject to a form of indirect rule on some matters.
Charter Act of 1833
An 1833 act that intended to provide for an extension of the royal charter granted to the East India Company. It extended the charter by 20 years, redesignated the Governor-General of Bengal as the Governor-General of India, and deprived the Governors of Bombay and Madras of their legislative powers. The Governor-General and his executive council were given exclusive legislative powers for the whole of British India. The act ended the activities of the British East India Company as a commercial body and it became a purely administrative body.
East India Company
An English and later British joint-stock company formed to pursue trade with the East Indies. It ended up trading mainly with the Indian subcontinent and Qing China. The company rose to account for half of the world’s trade, particularly in basic commodities including cotton, silk, indigo dye, salt, saltpetre, tea, and opium. It also ruled the beginnings of the British Empire in India.
Indian Rebellion of 1857
A rebellion in India against the rule of the British East India Company from May 1857 to July 1859. It began as a mutiny of sepoys of the East India Company’s army in the cantonment of the town of Meerut and soon escalated into other mutinies and civilian rebellions. It led to the dissolution of the East India Company in 1858. India was thereafter directly governed by the Crown as the new British Raj.
Government of India Act 1858
An Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom (21 & 22 Vict. c. 106) passed on August 2, 1858. Its provisions called for the liquidation of the British East India Company, which had been ruling British India under the auspices of Parliament) and the transference of its functions to the British Crown.
British Raj
The rule of the British Crown in the Indian subcontinent between 1858 and 1947.

 

East India Company vs. British Government

Until the 1757 Battle of Plassey, the East India Company (EIC or the Company) territories in India, which consisted largely of the presidency towns of Calcutta, Madras, and Bombay, were governed by the mostly autonomous—and sporadically unmanageable—town councils, all composed of merchants. The councils barely had enough powers for the effective management of their local affairs and the ensuing lack of oversight of the overall Company operations in India led to some grave abuses by Company officers and their allies. The control of rich Bengal gained in the aftermath of the Battle of Plassey brought India into the public spotlight in Britain and the Company’s money management practices were questioned.

By 1772, the Company needed British government loans to stay afloat and there was fear in London that the Company’s corrupt practices could soon seep into British business and public life. Consequently, the Parliament established regulations at aimed to manage the affairs of the EIC. Although some wanted the Company’s territories to be taken over by the British state, the eventual compromise asserted that the Company could act as a sovereign power on behalf of the Crown and while subject to oversight and regulation by the British government and parliament. From 1784, the British government had the final word on all major appointments in India.

With increased British power in India, supervision of Indian affairs by the British Crown and Parliament increased as well. By the 1820s, British nationals could transact business or engage in missionary work under the protection of the Crown in the three presidencies. Finally, under the terms of The Charter Act of 1833, the British Parliament revoked the Company’s trade license altogether. This made the Company a part of British governance, but administration of British India remained the responsibility of Company officers. The Charter Act of 1833 also charged the Governor-General-in-Council (to whose title was now added “of India”) with the supervision of civil and military administration of the totality of India and the exclusive power of legislation.

The proliferation of the Company’s power chiefly took two forms. The first was the outright annexation of Indian states and subsequent direct governance of the underlying regions that came to comprise British India. The second involved treaties in which Indian rulers acknowledged the Company’s hegemony in return for limited internal autonomy. In the early 19th century, the territories of these princes accounted for two-thirds of India. When an Indian ruler who was able to secure his territory wanted to enter such an alliance, the Company welcomed it as an economical method of indirect rule that did not involve the economic costs of direct administration or the political costs of gaining the support of alien subjects. In return, the company pledged to defend its allies.

 

British Raj: “Despotism Controlled from Home”

The Indian Rebellion of 1857, a large-scale rebellion by soldiers employed by the EIC in northern and central India against the Company’s rule, was brutally suppressed. The British government took control of the Company and all power was transferred from the EIC to the British Crown, which began to administer most of India as a number of provinces. The Crown controlled the Company’s lands directly and had considerable indirect influence over the rest of India, which consisted of the princely states ruled by local royal families. What followed became known as the British Raj, the rule of the British Crown in the Indian subcontinent between 1858 and 1947.

A 1909 map of the British Indian Empire, Edinburgh Geographical Institute, J. G. Bartholomew and Sons, Oxford University Press, 1909.

The British Raj extended over almost all present-day India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh, except for small holdings by other European nations such as Goa and Pondicherry. This area is very diverse, containing the Himalayan mountains, fertile floodplains, the Indo-Gangetic Plain, a long coastline, tropical dry forests, arid uplands, and the Thar desert.

The Government of India Act 1858 made changes in the governance of India at three levels: in the imperial government in London, in the central government in Calcutta, and in the provincial governments in the presidencies (and later in the provinces). In London, it provided for a cabinet-level Secretary of State for India and a 15-member Council of India, whose members were required, to have spent at least ten years in India no more than 10 years ago. The Act envisaged a system of “double government,” in which the Council ideally served both as a check on excesses in imperial policy making and as a body of up-to-date expertise on India. However, the Secretary of State also had special emergency powers that allowed him to make unilateral decisions and, in reality, the Council’s expertise was sometimes outdated.

In Calcutta, the Governor-General remained head of the Government of India and now was more commonly called the Viceroy on account of his secondary role as the Crown’s representative to the nominally sovereign princely states. He was, however, now responsible to the Secretary of State in London and through him to Parliament. The Governor-General in the capital, Calcutta, and the Governor in a subordinate presidency (Madras or Bombay) was each required to consult his advisory council. However, in the years of the post-rebellion reconstruction, Viceroy Lord Canning found the collective decision making of the Council to be too time-consuming for the pressing tasks ahead, so he requested the “portfolio system” of an Executive Council, in which the business of each government department (the portfolio) was assigned to and became the responsibility of a single council member. Routine departmental decisions were made exclusively by the member, but important decisions required the consent of the Governor-General and in the absence of such consent, required discussion by the entire Executive Council. This innovation in Indian governance was promulgated in the Indian Councils Act 1861.

If the Government of India needed to enact new laws, the Councils Act allowed for a Legislative Council—an expansion of the Executive Council by up to twelve additional members, each appointed to a two-year term—with half the members consisting of British officials of the government (termed official) and allowed to vote and the other half comprising Indians and domiciled Britons in India (termed non-official) and serving only in an advisory capacity. All laws enacted by Legislative Councils in India required the final assent of the Secretary of State in London. This prompted Sir Charles Wood, the second Secretary of State, to describe the Government of India as “a despotism controlled from home.” Moreover, although the appointment of Indians to the Legislative Council was a response to calls for more consultation with Indians, those appointed were from the landed aristocracy, often chosen for their British loyalty.

 

Princely States

A princely state, also called native state, refers to a semi-sovereign principality during the British Raj that was not directly governed by the British, but rather by a local ruler, subject to a form of indirect rule on some matters. The princely states varied greatly in status, size, and wealth. The British Crown’s suzerainty over 175 princely states, generally the largest and most important, was exercised in the name of the British Crown by the central government of British India under the Viceroy. The remaining approximately 500 states were influenced by agents answerable to the provincial governments of British India under a Governor, Lieutenant-Governor, or Chief Commissioner. A clear distinction between “dominion” and “suzerainty” was supplied by the jurisdiction of the courts of law: the law of British India rested upon the legislation enacted by the British Parliament and the legislative powers those laws vested in the various governments of British India, both central and local. In contrast, the courts of the princely states existed under the authority of the respective rulers of those states. By treaty, the British controlled the external affairs of the princely states absolutely. As the states were not British possessions, however, they retained control over their own internal affairs, subject to a degree of British influence which in many states was substantial.

Viceroy Lord Canning meets Maharaja Ranbir Singh of Jammu & Kashmir, March 9, 1860 by William Simpson, 1867.

Suzerainty over 175 princely states, some of the largest and most important, was exercised (in the name of the British Crown) by the central government of British India under the Viceroy. The remaining approximately 500 states were dependents of the provincial governments of British India under a Governor, Lieutenant-Governor, or Chief Commissioner (as the case might have been).

By the beginning of the 20th century, relations between the British and the four largest states – Hyderabad, Mysore, Jammu and Kashmir, and Baroda – were directly under the control of the Governor-General of India in the person of a British Resident. Two agencies, for Rajputana and Central India, oversaw 20 and 148 princely states respectively. The remaining princely states had their own British political officers, or agents, who answered to the administrators of India’s provinces.

Attributions