INDIAN HISTORY-10

इस ब्लॉग्स को सृजन करने में आप सभी से सादर सुझाव आमंत्रित हैं , कृपया अपने सुझाव और प्रविष्टियाँ प्रेषित करे , इसका संपूर्ण कार्य क्षेत्र विश्व ज्ञान समुदाय हैं , जो सभी प्रतियोगियों के कॅरिअर निर्माण महत्त्वपूर्ण योगदान देगा ,आप अपने सुझाव इस मेल पत्ते पर भेज सकते हैं - chandrashekhar.malav@yahoo.com

1. East India Company arrived in India at the time was ruled by the king in India? - Jahangir

2. East India Company to do business in India, which was in the year - 1615 

3. India East India Company made ​​its first business center in what position? - Surat 

4. Who was the battle of Plassey Middle - East India Company and the Nawab of Bengal 

5. Sthanantrit capital of British India from Calcutta to Delhi, which was the year - 1911 

6. India's first Governor-General's name? - William Bentinck 

7. Tipu Sultan was the East India Company conquered in what year? - 1792 

8. Rani of Jhansi war with the Englishman was in what year? - 1858 

9. Who was the founder of Hot Party in Congress - Bal Gangadhar Tilak 

10. To gain independence from the British, "Azad Hind Fauj" was established Kinhonne - Chandrashekhar Azad 

11.Humayu on the Sher Shah conquered in what year? - 1540 

14. Who was the Second Battle of Panipat - Akbar and Hemu 

15. The war between Akbar and Maharana Pratap is known by what name? - Turmeric Valley War 

16. Preferably chained to the judgment which the king? - Jahangir 

17. Mumtajmahl wife of Shah Jahan, the Taj Mahal built by Shah Jahan for, where the death took place? - Burhanpur 

18. Where is the tomb of Aurangzeb - Aurangabad 

19.What is the name of the daughter of Babur - Gulbdn Begum 

20. "Fatehpur Sikri" how the city built by Emperor - Akbar

.............................................................................................................................

1. ईस्ट इण्डिया कम्पनी के भारत आने के समय भारत में किस बादशाह का शासन था?- जहांगीर

2. ईस्ट इण्डिया कम्पनी को भारत में व्यापार करने की अनुमति किस सन् में मिली?- 1615

3. ईस्ट इण्डिया कम्पनी का भारत में पहला व्यापार केन्द्र किस स्थान पर बना?- सूरत

4. प्लासी का युद्ध किनके मध्य हुआ था?- ईस्ट इण्डिया कम्पनी और बंगाल के नवाब

5. ब्रिटिश भारत की राजधानी कलकत्ता से दिल्ली किस सन में स्थानन्तरित की गई थी?- 1911

6.भारत के प्रथम गवर्नर जनरल का नाम क्या है?- विलियम बेंटिक

7. ईस्ट इण्डिया कम्पनी ने टीपू सुल्तान पर किस सन् में विजय प्राप्त की?- 1792

8. झाँसी की रानी लक्ष्मीबाई का अग्रेजों के साथ युद्ध किस सन् में हुआ था?- 1858

9. कांग्रेस में गरम दल के संस्थापक कौन थे?- बाल गंगाधर तिलक

10. अंग्रेजों की गुलामी से मुक्ति पाने के लिए “आजाद हिन्द फौज” की स्थापना किन्होंने किया था?--  रास बिहारी बोस 

11. भारत का प्रथम मुगल शासक कौन था?- बाबर

12भारत में मुगल साम्राज्य कि सन् में स्थापित हुआ?- 1526(पानीपत के युद्ध में बाबर ने इब्राहिम लोदी पर विजय प्राप्त की और मुगल साम्राज्य स्थापित हुआ।)

13. हुमायु ने शेरशाह सूरी पर किस सन् में विजय प्राप्त की?- 1540

14. पानीपत का द्वितीय युद्ध किनके बीच हुआ?- अकबर और हेमू

15. अकबर और महाराणा प्रताप के मध्य हुए युद्ध को किस नाम से जाना जाता है?- हल्दी घाटी का युद्ध

16. किस बादशाह ने न्याय के लिए जंजीर लगवाया?

- जहांगीर

17. शाहजहां की बेगम मुमताजमहल, जिसके लिए शाहजहां ने ताजमहल बनवाया, की मृत्यु कहाँ पर हुई थी?- बुरहानपुर

18. औरंगजेब का मकबरा कहाँ पर है?- औरंगाबाद

19. बाबर की पुत्री का क्या नाम था?- गुलबदन बेगम

20. “फतेहपुर सीकरी” शहर किस बादशाह ने बनवाया?- अकबर

..........................................................................................................................

डाउनलोड भारतीय इतिहास नोट्स  ……क्लिक HERE 

CLICK HARE TO KNOW INDIAN HISTORY IN PDF

https://80f780ef-a-62cb3a1a-s-sites.googlegroups.com/site/lifemantrachickpea/do/FREE%20INDIAN%20HISTORY%20NOTES%20IN%20HINDI.pdf?attachauth=ANoY7cqY2kEqxhHDizig-bpYRVOntieMv_qMzJd1Q_UMJ0Fd5i4_BZTFQiORCxYqTNq9k_IjzJHlBAbLDYN6ziOzfQPI8Hp99pjqrm-lcP7u3Kt_tQm1vaBVvXz78noa5cl6mTIR6koK9-DvPlhlorV1Q7XkRR5QsgaKGbc1VVgAqJNpoF9t5GcqBju6FtibmVy9-M58FZWFyhv0sKu9aK3liyNo6qgG3mvEBvpmYwa2_ioFYYaTU6T2ni1DelwS8PciXE0V9-M8&attredirects=0

…………………………………………। …………………………………………। ........................................... ………………… 

War of the Indian History

भारतीय इतिहास के प्रमुख युद्ध

(War of the Indian History)

ई.पू.

३२६ हाईडेस्पीज का युद्ध : सिकंदर और पंजाब के राजा पोरस के बीच जिसमे सिकंदर की विजय हुई |

२६१ कलिंग की लड़ाई : सम्राट अशोक ने कलिंग पर आक्रमण किया था और युद्ध के रक्तपात से विचलित होकरउन्होंने युद्ध न करने की कसम खाई |

ईस्वी

७१२ – सिंध की लड़ाई में मोहम्मद कासिम ने अरबों की सत्ता स्थापित की |

११९१ – तराईन का प्रथम युद्ध – मोहम्मद गौरी और पृथ्वी राज चौहान के बीच हुआ था | चौहान की विजय हुई |

११९२ -तराईन का द्वितीय युद्ध – मोहम्मद गौरी और पृथ्वी राज चौहान के बीच| इसमें मोहम्मद गौरी की विजयहुई |

११९४ -चंदावर का युद्ध – इसमें मुहम्मद गौरी ने कन्नौज के राजा जयचंद को हराया |

१५२६ -पानीपत का प्रथम युद्ध -मुग़ल शासक बाबर और इब्राहीम लोधी के बीच |

१५२७ -खानवा का युद्ध – इसमें बाबर ने राणा सांगा को पराजित किया |

१५२९ -घाघरा का युद्ध -इसमें बाबर ने महमूद लोदी के नेतृत्व में अफगानों को हराया |

१५३९ – चौसा का युद्ध – इसमें शेरशाह सूरी ने हुमायु को हराया |

१५४० – कन्नौज (बिलग्राम का युद्ध) : इसमें फिर से शेरशाह सूरी ने हुमायूँ को हराया व भारत छोड़ने पर मजबूरकिया |

१५५६ – पानीपत का द्वितीय युद्ध :अकबर और हेमू के बीच |

१५६५ – तालीकोटा का युद्ध : इस युद्ध से विजयनगर साम्राज्य का अंत हो गया क्यूंकि बीजापुर,बीदर,अहमदनगर व गोलकुंडा की संगठित सेना ने लड़ी थी |

१५७६ – हल्दी घाटी का युद्ध : अकबर और राणा प्रताप के बीच, इसमें राणा प्रताप की हार हुई |

१७५७ – प्लासी का युद्ध : अंग्रेजो और सिराजुद्दौला के बीच, जिसमे अंग्रेजो की विजय हुई और भारत में अंग्रेजीशासन की नीव पड़ी |

१७६० – वांडीवाश का युद्ध : अंग्रेजो और फ्रांसीसियो के बीच, जिसमे फ्रांसीसियो की हार हुई |

१७६१ -पानीपत का तृतीय युद्ध :अहमदशाह अब्दाली और मराठो के बीच | जिसमे फ्रांसीसियों की हार हुई |

१७६४ -बक्सर का युद्ध : अंग्रेजो और शुजाउद्दौला, मीर कासिम एवं शाह आलम द्वितीय की संयुक्त सेना के बीच |अंग्रेजो की विजय हुई | अंग्रेजो को भारत वर्ष में सर्वोच्च शक्ति माना जाने लगा |

१७६७-६९ – प्रथम मैसूर युद्ध : हैदर अली और अंग्रेजो के बीच, जिसमे अंग्रेजो की हार हुई |

१७८०-८४ – द्वितीय मैसूर युद्ध : हैदर अली और अंग्रेजो के बीच, जो अनिर्णित छूटा |

१७९० – तृतीय आंग्ल मैसूर युद्ध : टीपू सुल्तान और अंग्रेजो के बीच लड़ाई संधि के द्वारा समाप्त हुई |

१७९९ – चतुर्थ आंग्ल मैसूर युद्ध : टीपू सुल्तान और अंग्रेजो के बीच , टीपू की हार हुई और मैसूर शक्ति का पतनहुआ |

१८४९ – चिलियान वाला युद्ध : ईस्ट इंडिया कंपनी और सिखों के बीच हुआ था जिसमे सिखों की हार हुई |

१९६२ – भारत चीन सीमा युद्ध : चीनी सेना द्वारा भारत के सीमा क्षेत्रो पर आक्रमण | कुछ दिन तक युद्ध होने केबाद एकपक्षीय युद्ध विराम की घोषणा | भारत को अपनी सीमा के कुछ हिस्सों को छोड़ना पड़ा |

१९६५ – भारत पाक युद्ध : भारत और पाकिस्तान के बीच युद्ध जिसमे पाकिस्तान की हार हुई | फलस्वरूपबांग्लादेश एक स्वतन्त्र देश बना |

१९९९ -कारगिल युद्ध : जम्मू एवं कश्मीर के द्रास और कारगिल क्षेत्रो में पाकिस्तानी घुसपैठियों को लेकर हुए युद्धमें पुनः पाकिस्तान को हार का सामना करना पड़ा और भारतीयों को जीत मिली |

;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;…………………………………………। ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;

;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;\

Naked Power and the Power of Nakedness:  
Alexander (the Great) & the Gymnosophists

Vinay Lal

Of all the stories told about Alexander the Great, none perhaps is as colorful as the account of his encounter with the ‘naked philosophers’ of India who have come to be known in Western literature as gymnosophists.  Teaching a survey course on Indian history, I have recently had occasion to contemplate the nature of this storied encounter, and a chance reading of Vikram Chandra’s Red Earth and Pouring Rain (1995) has brought to mind the pleasures of thinking about what might have transpired in this meeting of East and West, military might with spiritual pride, the over-dressed and the under-dressed, the power of arms and the piercing strength of words.

Alexander is reputed to have been Aristotle’s pupil, and it is from the Greek philosopher that he might have imbibed some interest in books, philosophizing, and the nature of wisdom.  A Greek prince’s education at that time doubtless included something about India and its fabled riches.  World conqueror that Alexander sought to be, India was never far from his horizon; and it is in 326 BCE that he arrived in northwest India.  The story of his ‘invasion’ of India has been told often enough, and is not without some peculiar features, among them the fact that not a single contemporary Indian source could be bothered to note or comment on this supposedly earth-shaking event.  Though Alexander is described as having vanquished the Indian king Porus at the battle of the Jhelum [Hydaspes], it is said that Porus’s noble demeanor and valor so impressed Alexander that he allowed the defeated king to continue to govern his territories in Alexander’s name. 

Not along after this military triumph, Alexander’s troops mutinied and demanded that the journey back west be commenced.   The soldiers were weary with fighting; besides, if we recall the common perception of India, the country has a way of taking a toll of people.  The heat, dust, dirt, and mosquitoes of India have been known to enfeeble the sturdiest man!  However, according to Plutarch, one of the principal sources for Alexander’s military sojourn in India, the Greek soldiers had been instigated to revolt by a number of naked philosophers.  As Plutarch was to write, “He [Alexander] captured ten of the Gymnosophists who had done most to get Sabbas to revolt, and had made the most trouble for the Macedonians. These philosophers were reputed to be clever and concise in answering questions, and Alexander therefore put difficult questions to them, declaring that he would put to death him who first made an incorrect answer.”  There being ten gymnosophists, each was asked one question.  Which, the fifth one was asked, is older, day or night.  “Day, by one day”, came back the answer; “upon the king expressing amazement”, Plutarch writes, the sadhu added:  “hard questions must have hard answers.  Passing on, then to the sixth, Alexander asked how a man could be most loved; ‘if’, said the philosopher, ‘he is most powerful, and yet does not inspire fear.’”  That, one suspects, is precisely the kind of advice intended for a world conqueror.

In another version, that which has come down to us from Onesicritus, Alexander’s helsman, he was dispatched by his master to seek an audience with India’s wise men.  Onesicritus was perhaps a logical choice as he had been a student of Diogenes, the founder of the school of Cynics.  Onesicritus is viewed by many scholars as having made up dialogues between Alexander and the gymnosophists, not merely in an attempt to add color to the narrative, but in the interest of representing Alexander as akin to a philosopher warrior.  Arrian, writing in the second century AD, offered yet another account:  impressed by stories of the spiritual discipline and endurance of the gymnosophists, Alexander reportedly could not contain his desire to meet them.  Alexander even hoped to take one or more of them with him to Greece [and so he did], though the oldest of the gymnosophists, says Arrian, spurned Alexander’s offer with the observation that “he had no need of anything that Alexander could give, since he was contented with what he had”; moreover, “Alexander’s companions were wandering about over all that land and sea to no profit, and that there was no limit to their many wanderings”.

Alexander may have known, from long before, that philosophers, at least, did not live in awe or fear of him.  Many years before arriving in India, he had met Diogenes.  Excited to meet the famous philosopher, who was lounging about in the sun, Alexander asked Diogenes if he could do anything for him.  “Yes, stand out of my sunlight”, replied Diogenes.  So, we can well imagine that Alexander may not have been entirely surprised at being rebuffed by India’s philosophers.  The story of this encounter would be circulated, often in embellished form, over the next 2,000 years, a parable about the folly of conquest, the unmatched pleasures of simple living, the dangers of absolutism, and so on.  Perhaps the most recent demonstration of the power of this story to entice readers and serve as a modern parable is to be found in Red Earth and Pouring Rain(1995), Vikram Chandra’s debut novel.  Here are excerpts, without comment, of the conversation between a gymnosophist (sadhu) and the translator as imagined by Chandra:
                        Translator:  He wants to know why you’re naked.
                        Sadhu:  Ask him why he’s wearing clothes.
                        Translator:  He says he’s asking the questions here.
                        Sadhu:  Questions give birth only to other questions.
                        Translator:  He says people who get funny with him get executed.
                        Sadhu:  Why?
                        Translator:  Because he’s the King of Kings.  And he wants you to stop                                          asking questions.
                        Sadhu:  King of Kings?
Translator:  He came all the way from a place called Greece, killing other kings, so he’s King of Kings, see.
Sadhu:  Fool of Fools, Master-Clown of Clowns.  Maha-Idiot of idiots.
Translator:  You want me to tell him that?
Sadhu:  I said it, didn’t I?
Translator:  You’re crazier than he is.  He says he’ll kill you.  Right here, right now.
Sadhu:  I’ll have to die someday. [pp. 222-23]

Copyright:  Vinay Lal, 2009

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Indus Valley Civilization

See a more detailed description

Even at the beginning of this century it was believed that the first Indian cities of any importance developed only during the first millennium B.C. The discovery of the immense ruins of two cities at Mohenjadaro and Harappa in 1925 necessitated the rewriting of early Indian history. The cities were located on the banks of the Indus and the Ravi respectively and flourished during the third millennium B.C. No mention of these cities ismade in the ancient literature, and their script has not been deciphered to this day.

The houses of these cities were solidly built of bricks and many were multi-storied and equipped with bathrooms and lavatories. The high quality of the pottery, along with hoards of gold and silver found at Indus Valley sites, suggests great the accumulation of great wealth. The city was amazingly well planned with broad main streets and good secondary streets. There were enormous granaries which served as store-houses for the entire community. Finds in excavations of the Mesopotamian civilization indicate that trade flourished between the two civilizations. What is interesting, though, is the total lack of public monuments, obelisks or statues. Moreover, there was no single house which served as a palace, which can be construed as meaning that there were no great inequities in that society, and that a certain democratic spirit prevailed. It appears that merchants might have been individually responsible for safeguarding their wealth from marauding brigands.

The Indus valley civilization belongs to the Bronze Age. Excellent tools made of bronze (an alloy of copper and tin) have been discovered. They also exported copper, along with peacocks, ivory and cotton textiles in return for silver and other commodities. However, the inhabitants of the various towns and cities in the Indus Valley were essentially farmers, and depended on the periodic floods to irrigate their land. The grain would be collected and distributed at the temple, of which the granary formed a part. Adjacent to the finest group of houses and raised on a 10 metre high platforms are the "citadel" mounds. The Mohenjadaro citadel was a many- roomed building built around a large rectangular tank. This seems to have been used for ritual baths.

The twin cities of Harappa and Mohenjadaro, which are the two most famous of the Indian Valley civilization sites, are now in Pakistan; both seem to have been built fully planned, and have identical layouts. Neither changed till near the end of the period. Though there was a long period of gradual decay towards 1750 B.C., the actual end was sudden, and remains unexplained though the evidence suggests that the Indus may have changed its course and floods might have followed. Some cataclysmic event, in any case, appears to have struck Harappa, and the cities and town were emptied of their inhabitants. At Mohenjadaro, the city was burnt and the inhabitants killed, and people who were far less advanced than the inhabitants of the Indus Valley seem to have taken possession of the towns. Thus it is possible to argue that the way was paved for the Aryans by the victory of barbarism over an older and more advanced urban culture.

Sources:

Kosambi, D. D. The Culture and Civilization of Ancient India in Historical Outline. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1965

Thapar, Romila.A History of India, vol I. England: Penguin, 1966

An Introduction to Indian History

The Indus valley civilization saw its genesis in the holy land now known as India around 2500 BC. The people inhabiting the Indus River valley were thought to be Dravidians, whose descendants later migrated to the south of India. The deterioration of this civilization that developed a culture based on commerce and sustained by agricultural trade can be attributed to ecological changes. The second millennium BC was witness to the migration of the bucolic Aryan tribes from the North West frontier into the sub continent. These tribes gradually merged with their antecedent cultures to give birth to a new milieu.

The Aryan tribes soon started penetrating the east, flourishing along the Ganga and Yamuna Rivers. By 500 BC, the whole of northern India was a civilized land where people had knowledge of iron implements and worked as labor, voluntarily or otherwise. The early political map of India comprised of copious independent states with fluid boundaries, with increasing population and abundance of wealth fueling disputes over these boundaries.

Unified under the famous Gupta Dynasty, the north of India touched the skies as far as administration and the Hindu religion were concerned. Little wonder then, that it is considered to be India’s golden age. By 600 BC, approximately sixteen dynasties ruled the north Indian plains spanning the modern day Afghanistan to Bangladesh. Some of the most powerful of them were the dynasties ruling the kingdoms of Magadha, Kosla, Kuru and Gandhara.

Known to be the land of epics and legends, two of the world’s greatest epics find their birth in Indian settings - the Ramayana, depicting the exploits of lord Ram, and the Mahabharta detailing the war between Kauravas and Pandavas, both descendants of King Bharat. Ramayana traces lord Ram’s journey from exile to the rescue of his wife Sita from the demonic clutches of Ravana with the help of his simian companions. Singing the virtues of Dharma(duty), the Gita, one of the most priced scriptures in Indian Mythology, is the advice given by Shri Krishna to the grief laden Arjun, who is terrified at the thought of killing his kin, on the battle ground. 

Mahatma Gandhi revived these virtues again, breathing new life in them, during India’s freedom struggle against British Colonialism. An ardent believer in communal harmony, he dreamt of a land where all religions would be the threads to form a rich social fabric.

Other good resources for History of India

The Mughal Empire

Vinay Lal

The great grandson of Tamerlane, Babar, who on his mother's side was descended from the famous Genghiz Khan, came to India in 1526 at the request of an Indian governor who sought Babar's help in his fight against Ibrahim Lodi, the last head of the Delhi Sultanate. Babar defeated Lodi at Panipat, not far from Delhi, and so came to establish the Mughal Empire in India. Babar ruled until 1530, and was succeeded by his son Humayun, who gave the empire its first distinctive features. But it is Humayun's son, Akbar the Great, who is conventionally described as the glory of the empire. Akbar reigned from 1556 to 1605, and extended his empire as far to the west as Afghanistan, and as far south as the Godavari river. Akbar, though a Muslim, is remembered as a tolerant ruler, and he even started a new faith, Din-i-Ilahi, which was an attempt to blend Islam with Hinduism, Christianity, Jainism, and other faiths. He won over the Hindus by naming them to important military and civil positions, by conferring honors upon them, and by marrying a Hindu princess.

Rejoicing at birth of Prince Salim (Jahangir). Mughal, c. 1590. (Click for a large image view.)

Akbar was succeeded by his son Salim, who took the title of Jahangir. In his reign (1605-1627), Jahangir consolidated the gains made by his father. The courtly culture of the Mughals flourished under his rule; like his great grand-father, Babar, he had an interest in gardens, and Mughal painting probably reached its zenith in Jahangir's time. Jahangir married Nur Jahan, "Light of the World", in 1611. Shortly after his death in October 1627, his son, Shah Jahan, succeeded to the throne. He inherited a vast and rich empire; and at mid-century this was perhaps the greatest empire in the world, exhibiting a degree of centralized control rarely matched before. Shah Jahan left behind an extraordinarily rich architectural legacy, which includes the Taj Mahal and the old city of Delhi, Shahjahanabad. As he apparently lay dying in 1658, a war of succession broke out between his four sons. The two principal claimants to the throne were Dara Shikoh, who was championed by the those nobles and officers who were committed to the eclectic policies of previous rulers, and Aurangzeb, who was favored by powerful men more inclined to turn the Mughal Empire into an Islamic state subject to the laws of the Sharia. It is Aurangzeb who triumphed, and though the Mughal Empire saw yet further expansion in the early years of his long reign (1658-1707), by the later part of the seventeenth century the empire was beginning to disintegrate.

Aurangzeb remains a highly controversial figure, and no monarch has been more subjected to the communalist reading of Indian history. He is admired by Muslim historians for enforcing the law of the Sharia and for disavowing the policies pursued by Akbar; among Hindus, laymen and historians alike, he is remembered as a Muslim fanatic and bigot. In the event, Aurangzeb's far-flung empire eventually eluded his grasp, and considerable disaffection appears to have been created among the peasantry. After Aurangzeb's death in 1707, many of his vassals established themselves as sovereign rulers, and so began the period of what are called "successor states". The Mughal Empire survived until 1857, but its rulers were, after 1803, pensioners of the East India Company. The last emperor, the senile Bahadur Shah Zafar, was put on trial for allegedly leading the rebels of the 1857 mutiny and for fomenting sedition. He was convicted and transported to Rangoon, to spend the remainder of his life on alien soil.

The Mughal Empire, 1526 to 1707 Source: F. Robinson, Atlas of the Islamic World since 1500 (Oxford, 19822), p.59.

Further Reading:

Habib, Irfan. The Agrarian System of Mughal India. London, 1963.

Habib, Irfan. An Atlas of the Mughal Empire. Delhi, 1982.

Qureshi, I. H. The Administration of the Mughal Empire. Karachi, 1966.

Richard, John F. The Mughal Empire. Vol. I, Part 5, of the New Cambridge History of India. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press, 1993.

Copyright, Vinay Lal 2001
This article has been translated into Romanian and be accessed at:
http://webhostinggeeks.com/science/mughals-sscnet-ro
A Polish translation of this article can be found at:
http://www.pkwteile.de/wissen/imperium-mogolow

/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

BRITISH INDIA
[page 1 of 2]

See also [Mahatma Gandhi] [Quit India Movement] [Dandi March][Hill Stations]

See additional papers and references at the end of page two

The British presence in India dates back to the early part of the seventeenth century. On 31 December 1600, Elizabeth, then the monarch of the United Kingdom, acceded to the demand of a large body of merchants that a royal charter be given to a new trading company, "The Governor and Company of Merchants of London, Trading into the East-Indies." Between 1601-13, merchants of the East India Company took twelve voyages to India, and in 1609 William Hawkins arrived at the court of Jahangir to seek permission to establish a British presence in India. Hawkins was rebuffed by Jahangir, but Sir Thomas Roe, who presented himself before the Mughal Emperor in 1617, was rather more successful. Two years later, Roe gained Jahangir's permission to build a British factory in Surat, and in 1639, this was followed by the founding of Fort St. George (Madras). Despite some setbacks, such as the Company's utter humiliation at the hands of the Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb, with whom the Company went to war between 1688-91, the Company never really looked back.

Gateway of India, Bombay

In 1757, on account of the British victory at Plassey, where a military force led by Robert Clive defeated the forces of the Nawab of Bengal,Siraj-ud-daulah, the East India Company found itself transformed from an association of traders to rulers exercising political sovereignty over a largely unknown land and people. Less than ten years later, in 1765, the Company acquired the Diwani of Bengal, or the right to collect revenues on behalf of the Mughal Emperor, in Bengal, Bihar, and Orissa. The consolidation of British rule after the initial military victories fell to Warren Hastings, who did much to dispense with the fiction that the Mughal Emperor was still the sovereign to whom the Company was responsible. Hastings also set about to make the British more acquainted with Indian history, culture, and social customs; but upon his return to England, he would be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors. His numerous successors, though fired by the ambition to expand British territories in India, were also faced with the task of governance. British rule was justified, in part, by the claims that the Indians required to be civilized, and that British rule would introduce in place of Oriental despotism and anarchy a reliable system of justice, the rule of law, and the notion of 'fair play'. Certain Indian social or religious practices that the British found to be abhorrent were outlawed, such as sati in 1829, and an ethic of 'improvement' was said to dictate British social policies. In the 1840s and 1850s, under the governal-generalship of Dalhousie and then Canning, more territories were absorbed into British India, either on the grounds that the native rulers were corrupt, inept, and notoriously indifferent about the welfare of their subjects, or that since the native ruler had failed to produce a biological male heir to the throne, the territory was bound to "lapse" into British India upon the death of the ruler. Such was the fate of Sambalpur (1849), Baghat (1850), Jhansi (1853), Nagpur (1854), and -- most tragically -- Awadh (1856). The Nawab of Awadh [also spelled as Oudh], Wajid Ali Shah, was especially reviled by the British as the worst specimen of the Oriental Despot, more interested in nautch girls, frivolous amusements -- kite-flying, cock-fighting, and the like -- and sheer indolence than in the difficult task of governance. The British annexation of Awadh, and the character of the Nawab, were made the subjects of an extraordinary film by Satyajit Ray, entitled The Chess Players ("Shatranj ke Khilari").

An English baby girl being carried on a palanquin by Indian bearers, on the road fo Nainital. Photograph dated 1904.

Shortly after the annexation of Awadh, the Sepoy Mutiny, more appropriately described as the Indian Rebellion of 1857-58, broke out. This was by far the greatest threat posed to the British since the beginnings of their acquisition of an empire in India in 1757, and within the space of a few weeks in May large swathes of territory in the Gangetic plains had fallen to the rebels. Atrocities were committed on both sides, and conventionally the rebellion is viewed as marking the moment when the British would always understand themselves as besieged by hostile natives, just as the Indians understood that they could not forever be held in submission. If in the early days of the Company's rule a legend was constructed around the Black Hole of Calcutta, so signifying the villainy of Indians, the Rebellion of 1857-58 gave rise to an elaborate mythography on both sides. Delhi was recaptured by British troops in late 1857, the Emperor Bahadur Shah, last of the Mughals, was put on trial for sedition and predictably convicted, and by mid-1858 the Rebellion had been entirely crushed. The East India Company was abolished, though John Stuart Mill, the Commissioner of Correspondence at India House, London, and the unacknowledged formulator of British policy with respect to the native states, furnished an elaborate but ultimately unsuccessful plea on behalf of the Company. India became a Crown colony, to be governed directly by Parliament, and henceforth responsibility for Indian affairs would fall upon a member of the British cabinet, the Secretary of State for India, while in India itself the man at the helm of affairs would continue to be the Governor-General, known otherwise in his capacity as the representative of the monarch as the Viceroy of India.

The proclamation of Queen Victoria, in which she promised that she and her officers would work for the welfare of their Indian subjects, ushered in the final phase of the British Raj. Among Indians, there were debates surrounding female education, widow remarriage, the age of consent for marriage, and more generally the status of women; and in the meanwhile, with increasing emphasis on English education, and the expansion of the government, larger numbers of Indians joined government service. There was, similarly, a considerable increase in both English-language and vernacular journalism, and in 1885 the Indian National Congress, at first an association comprised largely of lawyers and some other professionals, was founded in order that educated Indians might gain something of a voice in the governance of their own country. However, nationalist sentiments could not be confined within the parameters set by a gentlemanly organization such as the Congress, and both in Maharashtra, where the radicals were led by Bal Gangadhar Tilak, and in Bengal armed revolutionaries attempted to carry out a campaign of terror and assassination directed at British officials and institutions. In 1905, on the grounds that the governance of Bengal had become impossible owing to the large size of the presidency, the British partitioned Bengal, and so provoked the first major resistance to British rule and administrative policies in the aftermath of the Rebellion of 1857-58. It is during the Swadeshi movement that Indians deployed various strategies of non-violent resistance, boycott, strike and non-cooperation, and eventually the British had to agree to revoke the partition of Bengal. The partition itself had been attempted partly with a view to dividing the largely Muslim area of East Bengal from the western part of Bengal, which was predominantly Hindu, and the communalist designs of the British were clearly demonstrated as well in their encouragement of the Muslim League, a political formation that came into existence in 1907, on the supposition that the interests of the Muslims could not be served by the Indian National Congress. The capital of the country was shifted as well from Calcutta to Delhi, where a new set of official buildings designed to reflect imperial splendor led to the creation of New Delhi.

[continued on page 2]

BRITISH INDIA
[page 2 of 2] [Back to page 1]

See additional papers and references at the end of this page

Memsahib in Rickshaw, photograph from South India, C. 1895. (Click image for a large view.)

During World War I, when Britain declared that India was at war with Germany as well, large number of Indian troops served overseas, and the declaration by the Secretary of State Montagu in 1917 to the effect that it would be the intent of the Government of India to increase gradually Indian participation in the administration of the country was seen as an encouragement of Indian ambitions of eventual self-rule. But following the conclusion of the war, the British sought to introduce draconian legislation to contain the activity of people presumed to be political extremists, and the Punjab disturbances of 1919, including the notorious massacre by General Dyer of nearly 400 unarmed Indians at the Jallianwala Bagh in Amritsar in April, marked the emergence of a nation-wide movement against British rule. The events of 1919 also brought to the fore Mahatma Gandhi, who would henceforth be the uncrowned king of the Indian nationalist movement. Gandhi led the non-cooperation movement against the British in 1920-22, as well as a campaign of civil disobedience in 1930-31, and in 1942 he issued the call to the British to 'Quit India'. Negotiations for some degree of Indian independence, led by Gandhi, first took place in 1930 at the Round Table Conferences in London, but shortly thereafter the Congress decided to adopt a resolution calling for purna swaraj, or complete independence from British rule. Meanwhile, relations between the Hindus and Muslims had deteriorated, and during the latter years of World War II, when the leaders of the Congress, including Gandhi, Jawaharlal Nehru, and Sardar Patel were incarcerated, the Muslim League, which declared itself in support of the British war effort, had a free hand to spread the message of Muslim separatism. When, in the aftermath of the war, and the triumph of the Labor party, the British Prime Minister Clement Atlee declared that the British would grant India its independence, negotiations were commenced with all the major political parties and communities, including the Sikhs, the Congress, and the Muslim League. In launching Direct Action Day in 1946, which led to immense communal killings in Calcutta, the Muslim League sought to convey the idea that an undivided India was no longer a possibility; and the eventual attainment of independence from British rule on 15 August 1947 was accompanied not only by the creation of the new state of Pakistan, comprised of Muslim-majority areas in both the eastern and western parts of India, but by the unprecedented horrors of partition. At least 500,000 people are estimated to have been killed, and many women were abducted or raped; and it is estimated that no fewer than 11 million Hindus, Muslims, and Sikhs crossed borders, which to this day remains the single largest episode of migration in history.

Though the political narrative dominates in accounts of the history of British India, as in the preceding pages, the social and cultural histories of the British Raj are no less interesting. There are doubtless enduring, though not necessarily desirable, influences of British rule in contemporary India. The elites of the country write and converse largely in English, and are connected amongst themselves, and to the larger world outside, through the English language. The Constitution of India, howsoever noble a document, has been decisively shaped by the Government of India Act of 1935, which was scarcely designed to alleviate the distress of the predominantly underprivileged population of India, and not much thought seems to have been given to considering how appropriate a parliamentary system, with roughly the same number of seats in the lower (elected) house, the Lok Sabha, as in the House of Commons, might be for India when it is infinitely larger than Britain. The political and administrative institutions of independent India operate on the assumption that the country is still under colonial rule, and that the subjects are to have no voice in governance, unless they make an extreme fuss. The legal structure was handed down by the British, and the presumption remains that it does not exist to serve the common person, any more than does the vast apparatus of 'law and order': it is no accident that the police always arrive late in the popular Hindi film, when communities have already successfully taken the law into their own hands. The only innovations which have of been use in meeting forms of extreme oppression and injustice, such as Public Interest Litigation, are those which have effected a departure from the colonial model of justice.

India inherited from the British its present university system, and the origins of the summer migration of the middle class and elites to hill stations date back to the early nineteenth century. Social institutions such as clubs and gymkhanas, which persist down to the present day, were a critical part of British life, as E. M. Forster's A Passage to India, Orwell's Burmese Days, and the novels of John Masters and Paul Scott so amply suggest. Though the Indian languages were well developed before the arrival of the British in India, the standardization of these languages, and the creation of the first grammars and dictionaries, was achieved under British rule. The influential school of Kalighat painting emerged in late nineteenth century, and can scarcely be understood without a reference to the creation of a modern market, and similarly the printing press, which arrived in India in the sixteenth century, heralded the age of mechanical reproduction in India. In sports, the abiding passion remains cricket (once a preeminently colonial game), and the favorite drink of the Indian middle class male remains scotch and soda. One could point to a thousand different manifestations of the British presence in India, and slowly, one hopes, our histories will also alert us to the transformations wrought in British institutions and practices in post-independent India.

Other related publications on the history of British India by Vinay Lal:

"The Saga of Subhas Bose", review of Leonard Gordon's Brothers Against the Raj, Economic and Political Weekly 27, no. 4 (25 January 1992):155-156.

"The Incident of the Crawling Lane: Women in the Punjab Disturbances of 1919", Genders, no. 16 (Spring 1993):35-60.

"Surat Under the Raj", review of Douglas Haynes, Rhetoric and Ritual in Colonial India, Economic and Political Weekly 28, no. 18 (1 May 1993):863-865.

"Imperial Nostalgia", review of The Raj: India and the British 1600-1947, by C. A. Bayly et al.,Economic and Political Weekly 28, nos. 29-30 (17-24 July 1993):1511-13.

"Beyond Alterity", review of Sara Suleri's The Rhetoric of English India, Economic and Political Weekly 30, no. 5 (4 February 1995):254-55.

"The Courtesan and the Indian Novel", a review-article on Hasan Shah, The Nautch Girl, and Mirza M. H. Ruswa, Umra Jan Ada, Courtesan of Lucknow, Indian Literature, no. 139 (Sept-Oct 1995):164-70.

"Masculinity and Femininity in The Chess Players: Sexual Moves, Colonial Manoeuvres, and an Indian Game", in Manushi: A Journal of Women and Society, nos. 92-93 (Jan.-April 1996):41-50.

"Good Nazis and just scholars: much ado about the British Empire", review of P. J. Marshall, ed.,Cambridge Illustrated History of the British Empire, Race and Class 38, no. 4 (April-June 1997):89-101.

"Hill Stations: Pinnacles of the Raj." Review article on Dale Kennedy, The Magic Mountains: Hill Stations and the British Raj, Capitalism, Nature, Socialism 8, no. 3 (September 1997):123-132.

"John Stuart Mill and India", a review-article. New Quest, no. 54 (January-February 1998):54-64.

"Everyday Crime, Native Mendacity and the Cultural Psychology of Justice in Colonial India."Studies in History (New Series) 15, no. 1 (1999):145-66.

"Walking with the Subalterns, Riding with the Academy: The Curious
Ascendancy of Indian History", Studies in History (New Series) 17, no. 1
(2001), pp. 101-133.

"Subaltern Studies and Its Critics: Debates over Indian History",
History and Theory 40, no. 1 (February 2001), pp. 135-48.

"Reading between the Frames: The Burden and Freedom of
Photography", Economic and Political Weekly 35, no. 14 (1 April 2000),
pp. 1167-1170.

"Anti-terrorist Legislation: A Comparative Study of India, UK and Sri Lanka",
Lokayan Bulletin 11, no. 1 (July-August 1994), pp. 5-24.

Review of Dipesh Chakrabarty, Habitations of Modernity (2002), in Journal of Interdisciplinary History 35, no. 2 (Autumn 2004):343-45.

Review of Antoinette Burton, Dwelling in the Archive (2002), in Biography: An Interdisciplinary Quarterly 27, no. 3 (Summer 2004):673-676.

Review of Michael Gottlob, Historical Thinking in South Asia (2003), in Indian Economic and Social History Review 41, no. 4 (2004), pp. 501-4.

"Mapping India", review of J. B. Harley and David Woodward, eds., Cartography in the Traditional Islamic and South Asian Societies, The Book Review 17, no. 9 (Sept. 1993):8-9.