The Men Who Ruled India

Title: The Men Who Ruled India

Editor: Philip Mason

Publisher: Rupa & Co, 2006 (First published 1985)

ISBN: 978-81-7167-361-2

Pages: 368

India has a tradition several millennia old, of which the last two centuries wrought more change than all the others combined. A great part of this last period saw the country ruled by the British, who first came here as traders, then accumulated military power for the protection of trade from brigands who arose from the unsettled nature of affairs caused by the political vacuum of post-Mughal era, and who afterwards found it expedient to set their own rules and administer the country. This strange combination of factors is unique, as the British were unique in their deals with the conquered. Indian mainland had colonies, albeit very small, of the French and the Portuguese. These colonies were administered as part of metropolitan France or Portugal, but India was always separate from the home country for the Britishers, she was a jewel in the crown – a thing to show off, but then to be safely tucked away from the reaches of a predator. This book is about the founders and administrators who made the empire and ruled it, till at last the educated Indians found their hegemony resentful and the ‘guardians’ left the country for good. Philip Mason (1906 – 1999) was himself an English civil servant who joined the ICS in 1928 and served nearly two decades in India in many administrative capacities. Don’t read this book to know the history, read it only if you already are familiar with it which is essential for understanding the background on which Mason weaves his web of personalities. This book tells the story of the personnel who built up an empire and then dismantled it themselves, right from the arrival of William Hawkins in August 1608 to the departure of the last platoon of the Somerset Light Infantry in February 1948, which has more reason for pride than shame, as the author asserts. This book was first published as two volumes in 1954, titled the Founders and Guardians. This general bifurcation is still visible in the two main parts along which this volume is divided. The book is pleasant to read, but the author’s wit is heartier in the first part. Mason reiterates one fact repeatedly to drive home the point that the British never ruled India with an iron hand. At its most numerous, the Englishmen in India who administered the country numbered around 1200 as against the population of 300 million.

The first two parts of the narrative tells the story of how the English who came as merchants dug themselves in and assumed administrative control of Bengal, the richest province at that time, by the end of 18^th century. We also learn about the excessive centralization of power and dispensation of officials at the mere whim of the emperor under Mughal rule. When the English landed at Surat in 1608 and wanted to build a warehouse (called factory in those times), no official in the local administration was competent enough to grant permission. Trade and commerce were incomprehensible entitites for the Mughals. William Hawkins trudged all the way to Agra to get proper sanction from Jehangir, who was too busy with heavy drinking and eating cartloads of opium. The officials, who were entrusted with the task of collecting revenue from villagers called zamindars, performed their duties only at the pleasure of the emperor. When he died, his employer inherited all worldly possessions of his subordinate and if the family had been lucky enough, they might hope to get some meager amount for their maintenance. The English East India Company stepped into this tumultuous state of affairs in the 18^th century, when their power began to be felt around the middle of the century in India while the Mughal Empire slowly disintegrated into nothingness. Strange it might seem, but the first positive acquisition of the company was facilitated by the over ambition of Dupleix, the French governor who meddled freely in the internal tussles of Indian kings. Robert Clive led a force against Arcot and settled his nominee, Mohammed Ali, on the throne as Nawab in 1751. This marked the beginning of British dominance in India. When the century ended, we see the company establishing the right to collect taxes and conduct administration in the provinces of Bihar and Bengal and exercising civil and judicial powers. The country lay vulnerable to the forays of Afghans and Marathas, who tried to exploit the state of lawlessness caused by the weakness of Mughal Empire.

Mason’s moral justification for the establishment of British rule in India hinges on the benefits accrued to the populace who were reeling under anarchy, lawlessness or the law of a single man, excess demands of taxation and the inhuman superstitious rituals like Sati and human sacrifices. The British reduced the tax demand after assessing each plot and its crop-bearing capacity, but collected the revenue efficiently. Under the Mughals, the burden was far higher, but the net revenue to the state was less, as the peasants opposed them fervently. The British established the concept of ‘Rule of Law’, whereas the whims of one person controlled the destinities of the poor in earlier times. This was so alien to the Indian psyche that the rulers and the common folk alike could not digest the strange notion that the governor general or the resident who was the most powerful man on the subcontinent or the province couldn’t do what he wished! Attempts to curb the practice of Sati were opposed by Brahmins on the plea that it constituted an affront to Hinduism. This line is familiar to us even today. When reason revolted against a boorish religious ritual, conservatives fight against the intellectuals citing this same argument. Christianity faced this acid test in 18^th century Europe, Hinduism did in the 19^th and Islam is facing the challenge now. Opposition to light that reveals every dark corner in the religion’s cupboard comes out in the form of armed struggle or terrorist attacks, but it is certain that sooner, rather than later, the cold light of reason shall prevail. It must also be remembered that there were some genuine cases of voluntary immolation by grieving widows, which is mentioned in the text. By setting this glorious picture of an India that turned enlightened to some extent by British rule, Mason is compelled to explain why the people resented their rule, even though it was so magnificently benevolent for them. And his reasoning is far from convincing, because he argues that life became dull, since the law was predictable and brigands were suppressed. This looks as if the people were denied an adventurous life by British administration. Mason goes on to say that people looked at nearby princely states and longingly wished for the unexpected twists and turns of life over there.

The conqueror’s role changed to that of guardians after the Mutiny in 1857 to 1909, when serious reforms were contemplated to hand over ‘some power’ to Indian hands. The Mutiny came as a surprise to the British, though Mason observes symptoms pretty clearly with the benefit of hindsight. For about four months, the British Empire in India teetered on the edge of an abyss. The number of white soldiers in India was much less as compared to the rebels and minuscule when compared to the total native population. After the initial success of the mutineers, their decision to flock to Delhi and accept the overlordship of the last Mughal sultan proved to be their undoing. Indecision and ambivalence made the king to be equivocal. Meanwhile, the British strengthened their positions and greatly augmented their strength by importing soldiers. The siege of Delhi was the critical moment. As soon as the city fell, passive spectators who were keenly watching the state of affairs entered the fray on the side of the British, especially the Punjabi soldiers, whose kingdom was the latest in the long list to be annexed to the Raj. After the Mutiny was over, the distrust was soon overcome and the Indian Civil Service confidently undertook the burden of administration unmolested by considerable reforms. Several famines occurred during this period, particularly in Orissa in 1866, in which a large portion of the population perished, but that of Bihar in 1874 is reported to have dealt with decisive measures that helped to minimize deaths directly attributable to starvation.

It has been the pet fad of patriots in India to ascribe all responsibility of partitioning the country on religious lines on the shoulders of the British. ‘Divide and Rule’, they would say, was the policy of the colonialists. No body stops sufficiently long to examine this fallacious argument in more detail. Hindus and Muslims were two separate communities without any sense of common destiny at the time of partition. Except for a small section of the Muslims who had access to secular, universal education, most of Muslims and also the Hindus were illiterate or subjected to viciously partisan teaching at a local madrassah. Communal riots were common. Mason describes in blood chilling detail some incidents related to the Moplah Rebellion of Kerala in 1921, in which thousands of Hindus were mercilessly butchered in cold blood. Even though there have been attempts by pseudo-secularists to glorify this communal riot in which only one party suffered, as an episode in the freedom struggle, nothing can be farther from the truth in its wanton cruelty and mass conversion of Hindus to Islam. Mason remarks that victims were often skinned alive, and were forced to dig their own graves before they were mowed down (p.288). This was ethnic cleansing on a large scale and was crushed by the British. The stamping down had been so effective that no large scale violence was witnessed again in that area.

As the author subconsciously lets out, the British respected those tribes who were unlawful and uncivilized, but obeyed them after an initial struggle. He has sweet memories of the north eastern tribes who assisted them in the war against the Japanese, or the north western tribes who had a working relationship, though an uneasy one, with the British or even the fanatic Hurs of Sindh. It is said that the British were affectionate with them, but not so with the people of the mainland who never fully digested the strangeness of British rule and rebelled whenever an opportunity presented itself.

The book is graced with numerous colour and monochrome plates of paintings and photographs that are priceless in sharing an informative moment in the lives of the people depicted in them. A comprehensive index adds value to the material, which can’t be compared to the rigour of an academic publication.

The book is highly recommended.

Rating: 3 Star