CHAPTER XVI

INDIA TO THE GREAT WAR

In an earlier chapter we saw the gradual weakening of the rule which had been established by the Great Moghuls. The dour puritanism of Aurungzeb brought about the great Mahratta revolt under Sivaji. A little later it is plain that the whole empire was fast sinking into anarchy. Out of this anarchy appeared the competition of French and English, not at first for conquest but for trading privileges. Out of the determination of Clive to avail himself of these privileges and to defeat the schemes of Dupleix came the extension of the power of the London East India Company, till three or four factories, rented from the Moghuls in widely separated presidencies, became the nuclei of an ever-expanding dominion.

This new situation, revealed at last to the British Parliament and the British people, was certain to have its moral reaction. Even the unscrupulous attacks made first upon Clive and later upon Warren Hastings were in part due to a feeling that responsibility and trusteeship had been accepted, which the Company could not evade because of any relation to its Moghul patrons. This sense of responsibility, though frequently forgotten, yielded fruit in Lord North's Regulating Act of 1773 and Pitt's Government of India Act of 1784. By these the appointment of the Governor-General was restricted to the Crown, and very drastic penalties were provided for any officials found guilty of corruption or oppression.

So the long period of disruption and anarchy which had vexed India since the death of Aurungzeb was brought to an end.

The Pax Indica which ensued may be said to have begun when Lord Lake was welcomed in 1803 by the blind and aged descendant of the Great Moghuls, Shah Alam II, just delivered from his Mahratta prison. The days of anarchy and of Muhammadan tyranny were alike over. A new era had begun. The next years, naturally, were not without their conflicts, both within and without the Company's territory. But the main story is of progress toward peace and toward greater administrative efficiency. It was well that the renewal of the Company's charter every twenty years gave periodical opportunity for the introduction of reforms. Thus, in 1813, the trading monopoly of the Company was terminated. In 1833 the result of much splendid missionary work appeared in greater concern for the inclusion of indigenous capacity in the administration. When the charter was renewed, Parliament declared: "No native of the said Indian territories, nor any natural British-born subject of His Majesty resident therein, shall by reason only of his religion, place of birth, descent, color, or any of them, be disabled from holding any place, office, or employment under the Company." At the same time much attention was being given to education attention greatly stimulated by the work of the missionary Alexander Duff‚1 and guided by the famous minute of March 7, 1835, written by Thomas Babington Macaulay. In the light of to-day's experience it is clear that Macaulay overvalued the importance of Western studies for the Indian as much as he undervalued studies in the languages and literatures of India; but at least he was earnestly devoted to the education of India.

The viceroyalty of Lord William Bentinck, from 1829 to 1835, has little in it of conquest, but a great deal that made for the happiness of the people of India, from efforts for restoring equilibrium to the finances to the abolishing of sati.2 The

1 Missionary and educationalist, 1806-78. Began work in India in 1830.

2 Sati, sometimes spelled suttee, is a Sanskrit word signifying "a faithful woman." It refers to the custom of widows burning themselves on the funeral pyres of their husbands. The practice was made illegal in 1829,

inscription on this Viceroy's monument at Calcutta tells only the simple truth: "He abolished cruel rites; he effaced humiliating distinctions; he gave liberty to the expression of public opinion; his constant study it was to elevate the intellectual and moral character of the natives committed to his charge." To all this the response of India was far from negative, and religious reform seemed promised from within as well as from without. A good illustration is in the life and work of Ram Mohun Roy,' founder of the theistic society known as the Brahmo Samaj.2 By many this distinguished Bengali is regarded as "the father of modern India, its ideals and aspirations," the kindler of a flame destined never to expire. He was certainly the pioneer of much in the way of religious and social reform. Born in Lower Bengal in 1774, Ram Mohun Roy grew up a foe to the prevalent idolatry and keenly desirous of taking India back along the old paths to a purer faith. He became persuaded that the English rule, "though a foreign yoke, would lead more speedily and surely to the amelioration of the native inhabitants," so with great courage he joined in the campaign against sati, advocated (with Macaulay) the introduction of Western education, and wrote powerfully against idolatry. Among the first Indians of rank to break through the prejudices of caste by crossing "the black water," Ram Mohun Roy visited England in 1830, and there died three years later. The founding of the Brahmo Samaj was a sincere attempt to rid Indian religion of cruelty and superstition. It did not gain the widespread success anticipated - partly because of the rise of similar societies, partly because of the general diffusion of some of its teachings throughout orthodox Hinduism. But in personages such as Ram Mohun Roy, Keshub Chunder Sen,'

1 See Life and Letters of Raja Ram Mohun Roy; also Macnicol, Making of Modern India, ch. XIII.

2 That is, "The Society of Brahman," a theistic society founded in 1828.

The original Samaj has split many times, and under the name of the Adi Samaj has now but a small following.

Keshub Chunder Sen joined the Samaj in 1859, and became one of its most eloquent exponents to the Western world.

1

and Debendranath Tagore 1 (father of the poet), the Brahmo Samaj went a long way toward making Indian idealism articulate.

Returning to our historical survey, we find the successors of Lord William Bentinck by no means so fortunate as he in keeping the frontier free from war. There was a campaign in Afghanistan in 1837, not unconnected with the rapid advance of Russia in Central Asia. In 1843 came the annexation of Sind by Sir Charles Napier, an annexation announced in one of the most laconic dispatches of history, "Peccavi" ("I have Sind"). Then came the conquest of the Sikhs in 1845 and the surrender of Lahore. Again, no sooner had Lord Dalhousie arrived as Governor-General in 1848 than he found himself faced with the necessity of war in the Panjab. Four years later he had to wage war in Burmah, and in 1856 he carried out the annexation of Oudh, after a vain attempt to persuade the native ruler to put his own house in order.

All these campaigns may easily blind us to the importance of the great amount of administrative reform accomplished in India proper during the same period. The great educational measure of 1854 provided, among other things, for a Department of Education and for a university in each of the three presidencies. There seemed ahead a long path of peaceful progress. Then came, almost like a bolt from the blue, the Mutiny. At a farewell banquet in England, on the eve of proceeding to take up the viceroyalty, Lord Canning 2 uttered the prophetic words: "I wish for a peaceful term of office. But I cannot forget that in the sky of India, serene as it is, a small cloud may arise, no larger than a man's hand, but which, growing larger and larger, may at last threaten to burst and overwhelm us with ruin."

The Indian Mutiny of 1857 had more than one cause. It was Muhammadan in the sense that it looked for some revival

1 Son of Prince Dwarka Nath, and one of the great mystics of modern India. He joined the Samaj in 1841 and was recognized as its Maharshi or chief.

Charles George, Earl of Canning, 1812-62.

of the Moghul power. It was Hindu in that the caste prejudices of the sepoys were said to have been flouted by requiring them to use cartridges greased with the fat of cows and pigs. For this rumor there seems to have been some ground. In a larger way it was due to the gradual rise of a great tide of resentment against all that the West had brought to India. The fact that just a century had elapsed since the battle of Plassey riveted the dominion of the West on India made the resentment the more timely. The Mutiny really represented does much of the unrest to-day the clash of opposed civilizations, brought into contact without assimilation.

as

It is not necessary to tell the full story of this historic revolt,1 but a few of its outstanding incidents may be recalled. For those who understood, the first sign was trouble at Barrackpore in January 1857. After a few isolated acts of insubordination came an outbreak at Meerut in May. This was followed by the march of the mutineers to Delhi, which from that time became the headquarters of the revolt. With all the Northwest Provinces seemingly in a flame of rebellion, two men kept their heads, Canning at Calcutta and Lawrence 2 in the Panjab. The latter used his Sikh troops, and the loyalty of the men, who so little time before had been themselves subdued by British arms, stood the strain. Canning was getting up troops from various directions, fortunately being able to intercept the expedition then on its way to commence operations in China. Soon came the siege of Delhi, whose capture after three months proved the turning-point of the mutiny. The massacre at Cawnpore, due to the treachery of Nana Sahib,3 "the arch-villain of the Mutiny," brought upon the rebels a terrible vengeance, inflicted by Sir Henry Havelock. The story of the defense and the relief of Lucknow, told so often in prose and verse, brings us to the last important incident of

1 For a full account, see Malleson's Indian Mutiny.

2 See Edwardes and Merivale, Life of Sir Henry Lawrence.

The common designation of Dandu Panth, adopted son of the ex-Peshwa of the Mahrattas.

* See Marshman's Memoirs of Sir Henry Havelock,