lOMoARcPSD|28771225

Ideologies

BA (Hons.) History (University of Delhi)

Scan to open on Studocu

Studocu is not sponsored or endorsed by any college or university

Downloaded by Nihal Malik ([email protected])
 lOMoARcPSD|28771225

1. How did shifts in ideology shape the British policies in India?

OR
How did changing ideologies in Britain influence state policies in the 19th century?
OR
To what extent did ideological influences shape British policies in India?
OR
How did the ideas of Orientalism and Utilitarianism shape the colonial policies in India?
2. Do you agree with the view that ideologies were used to serve the needs of the colonial
state? Elaborate.
OR
How did different ideologies contribute to governance of the British Empire in India?
3. How did the British attitudes towards India and Indians change between 1757-1857?
4. What do you mean by the term ‘Orientalism’? In what ways did it contribute to the
expansion and consolidation of British power?
___________________________________________________________________________

Throughout history, different empires have resorted to different ideologies to legitimise and justify
thier rule. However, this ideology never grows in isolation and is influenced by social and political
conditions. In the case of the English, as stated by Shekhar Bandopadhyaya, since the conquest of
Ireland in the sixteenth century, the English gradually emerged as the “New Romans, charged with
civilizing backward peoples across the world.” They carried out this mission in two phases i.e. the
“first empire” stretching from the Atlantic towards America and the West Indies and the “second
empire” which looked more towards the East, towards Asia. The concept of “White Man Burden”
according to Thomas Metcalf got extended to India after Britain won the Battle of Plassey, and it
was understood and agreed that “Britain must secure the prosperity of India’s people before seeking
any gain for itself.” The questions lingering over the minds of the British however were first, how
were they to govern such a massive territory, and second, what principles could they use to legitimse
such governance. What became was a territorial empire based on ideals of military autocracy,
hierarchy and racial contempt. As a result of the Enlightenment, the British also started defining
themselves as ‘civilized’ in contrast to the Orientals, putting forward their own ideas of what
‘modern’ and ‘civilized’ should be like. Though there were adjustments made in the functioning of
the imperial ideology from time to time, the fundamentals of the ideology remained the same.

For several years, it is argued that the government of the East India Company acted like an “Indian
ruler” in the sense that it recognized the authority of the Mughal emperor, struck coins in his name,
and used Persian as the official language and administered Hindu and Muslim laws in the court. Lord
Clive himself, advocated a “double government” where the criminal justice system would be left in
the hands of the Nawabi officials while civil and fiscal matters would be controlled by the Company.
However, the Anglicization of this system occurred but progressed gradually
ORIENTALISM
The image of the “decayed system” in India followed the view that India’s past was glorious and that
over time it had decayed. This then spurred interest in knowing India’s past and its culture and

Downloaded by Nihal Malik ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|28771225

tradition. Sir William Jones, for example, studied Indian languages with the view of restoring to the
Indians their forgotten languages and legal system which was earlier monopolized by the pundits and
maulvis. Sir Jones also found a link between Sanskrit, Greek and Latin, all supposedly belonging to
the Indo-European group of languages thus, equating India’s antiquity to that of the Classical West.
This was the beginning of the Orientalist tradition which led to the establishment of institutions like
the Calcutta Madrassa (1781), the Asiatic Society of Bengal (1784) and the Sanskrit College in
Banaras (1794) all of which promoted the study of Indian languages and Scriptures. However, all of
this was defining Indian tradition as per the British and its implication was that this interpretation
was the right one as it was legitimized by the British.
Edward Said (1978) views Orientalism as knowledge thrust from above and legitimised by the
power of the colonial state; a part and parcel of an imperialist programme. This view has been
criticised by scholars like Eugene Irschick, who see Orientalism as knowledge produced through a
process of dialogue in which colonial officials, Indian commentators and native informants
participated in a collaborative intellectual exercise. However, it cannot be denied that the Indian
participants seldom played a definitive role in its final outcome. Irschick, too, acknowledges that the
most important aspect of the cognitive enterprise of Orientalism was to “produce a knowledge of the
past to meet the requirements of the present”, i.e., to service the needs of the colonial state.
Some Orientalist projects like the treatises on Hindu law, included- A Code of Gentoo Laws, first
commissioned by Hastings in 1773 and published in English translation by Nathaniel Brassey
Halhed (1776) ; A Digest of Hindu Law on Contracts and Successions proposed to Cornwallis in
1788 by Sir William Jones and published in English translation by Henry Thomas Colebrooke
(1796-98) after Jones's death, and many more.
Thomas Metcalf talks about one of the categories the British used to comprehend India, which was
the idea of ‘Oriental despotism’. Oriental despotism had lasting implications for the emerging of the
Raj in India, for it carried with it the implication that Asian countries had no laws or property, and
hence its people had no rights. However, as the British were the inheritors of India’s past, many of
the ideas about India’s people that paved their view of the past found a place in the colonial
government. From the 1770’s however, a deeper understanding of India was undertaken, and the
Company moved their attention to understanding the cultural and racial characteristics of its people.
In the early phase of Orientalism, Governor General Warren Hastings, was the prime mover behind
the policies adopted by the colonial state. Hastings stated that the Hindus “had been in possession of
laws which continued unchanged from the remotest antiquity”. The highlight of this tradition was the
Indians were supposed to be governed with their own laws for which a knowledge about Indian
society was important which initiated a process of “reverse acculturation” as defined by Gauri
Viswanathan. A need was felt to study Indian law and then assimilate them into the subject society
for better administration. For this purpose Fort William College was established in 1800 to train civil
servants in Indian languages and tradition.
Bernard Cohn (1996) talks about how the study of Indian languages by the British Orientalists,
largely with the help of indigenous religious authorities, had administrative functions to serve. For
instance, the study of Persian was necessitated in the aftermath of the Battle of Plassey to recruit and

Downloaded by Nihal Malik ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|28771225

train an Indian army and to develop a system of alliances and treaties with native independent
powers. Sanskrit, seen as the other Indian “classical” language was studied to gain a better
understanding of the Hindu codes and laws. Besides, regional languages like Bengali were promoted
to facilitate communication in administration at the provincial level. Besides these, the Orientalist
discourse had another political purpose to serve, as argued by Thomas Trautmann. By propagating
the idea that the British and Indians share a relationship rooted deep in the classical past, reflected in
the supposed linguistic lies between Sanskrit, Greek and Latin, the British sought to morally bind the
Indians to colonial rule through a rhetoric of “love” and obligation.
It is to be noted, however, that although the Orientalist discourse, initially centred on respect for
ancient Indian traditions, produced a body of knowledge about the Indian society that highlighted
not only the past glory of Indian civilization (owing largely to the Aryans, the distant kin of the
Europeans), but also its subsequent degeneration. This served to legitimize authoritarian rule as it
appeared that India needed to be rescued from its present predicament and elevated to the state of
progress achieved by Europe;thereby, leading to the demise of Orientalism as a governmental policy.
______________
Hastings’ policy was therefore abandoned by Lord Cornwallis, and he went on to aim for greater
Anglicisation of administration and imposition of the Whig principles of the British government.
The notion of Oriental despotism provided an “implicit justification” of the “paternalism of the Raj.”
From the very early stages of its rule, the Company tried to curb the influences of the local rajas and
the zamindars and ostensibly show the regalia of their own rule i.e. badges, uniform and seals. This
view sprung up from the premise that the natives were not used to freedom and had to be
emancipated from the power of their corrupt feudal lords. William Jones and other men like him
typified the paternalistic attitude of men.

The Industrial Revolution in Britain around 1800 created a need to develop and incorporate the
Indian markets for manufactured goods and ensure a secured supply of raw materials. This needed a
more effective administration and the lining of the colony to the economy of the mainland. Thus
there were several measures pushed to reform both the mainland and India. It was Evangelicalism
and Utilitarianism, that brought forward a fundamental change in the nature of the Company’s
administration in India.

EVANGELICALISM
According to the doctrine of Evangelicalism, India had been conquered through acts of sin and
crime. However, instead of preaching the abolition of this sinful rule, it advocated its reform, so that
Indians could avail the benefit of good governance. Evangelicalism preached the permanence of
British rule and advocated change and improvement as its mission.

Evangelicalism fought hard against Indian barbarism and advocated the permanence of British rule
to change the very nature of Hindustan. The chief exponent of this view was Charles Grant and in
India, the exponents were the missionaries in Srirampur near Calcutta. The Evangelists resented the
early compromise of not disturbing the way of Indian society, and went on a sort of Crusade, as
shown in the struggle of the Sreerampore missionaries, who wanted to get on with the task of

Downloaded by Nihal Malik ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|28771225

reforming the current degeneration of Indian society. Missionaries like Charles Grant were openly
hostile to ‘Indian Barbarism’.This hostility, a trademark of evangelicalism, was combined with a
desire to ‘civilize’ India. The main problem identified was the ignorance of the Indian people due to
their religious beliefs which could only be disseminated by the light of Christianity and in this lay
the noble mission of the British to rule India. He in 1792 argued that the dissemination of the
Christian light should be the principle objective of the British rule in India. To make his view
stronger, Grant advocated that along with the civilizing process, material benefits would also
increase and there would be no danger for liberty from the English. His idea was furthered in the
Parliament by William Wilberforce, leading to the passage of the Charter Act of 1813, which
allowed Christian missionaries to enter India without restrictions.
Evangelist attitude went hand in hand with the face of British Liberalism. According to Stokes, there
was an overlap of interest between the Evangelists and the free-trade merchants, who also wanted
the Company to shift its attention from its functions as a trader to those of a ruler in order to bring
about the improvements and changes that India needed to become a good supplier of raw materials
and consumer of finished products. Fundamentally, there was no difference between the Evangelist
and free-trade merchant view regarding the policy of assimilation and Anglicization. The merchant
community would benefit from the civilizing mission's laws to acquire property etc. in India, and
then, under "free trade' they could work out the problems of creating a market for British goods
amongst the Indians. Under a good government, the Indian peasants could again experience
improvement to become consumers of British products. In fact, it was Charles Grant who presided
over the passage of the Charter Act of 1833, which took away the Company’s monopoly rights over
Indian trade.
UTILITARIANISM

The period between 1828-56 saw the coming into play of the doctrine of Liberalism, embodied in
Thomas Macaulay’s vision that the British administrator’s task was to civilise rather than conquer,
thereby setting a liberal agenda for the emancipation of India through governance. This era is
characterised by a fervour for reforms. It was in this period that the Company vehemently promoted
English education, and enacted laws for the abolition of sati (1829), the sanction of the remarriage of
widows (1856), etc. As suggested by Stokes, it may have been an aberration of the ideology of
Liberalism – which sought to bring about social reforms through legislation – that led to the genesis
of Utilitarianism, with its distinctive authoritarian tendencies. It was in this atmosphere of liberalism
of the British that Utilitarianism emerged.

The utilitarian ideas were to have a fundamental influence in molding the British attitudes towards
India. Jeremy Bentham preached that the ideal of human civilization was to achieve the greatest
good of the greatest number. Good laws, efficient and enlightened administration were the
underlining factors of change with the idea of the rule of law to be supreme. With the coming of
James Mill to the East India Company’s London office, these doctrines came to be upheld and an
efficient utilitarian attempt was made to combat the Orientalists. A total vision of political reform on
the philosophical grounds of' utilitarianism was sought to be given a concrete shape. The question of
law as an instrument of change was suggested under Bentinck. It was possible, he believed, for

Downloaded by Nihal Malik ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|28771225

judiciary or law to be the instrument of changing Indian practices like Sati and female infanticide.
We see a series of laws and penal codes enacted under the Benthamite principle of a centrally
logically and coherently evolved system that would go down to the grassroots.

Utilitarianism, as a philosophy of the government, first became explicit in the policies of James Mill.
These were dictated by the twin philosophies of good laws and efficient administration. According to
Mill, India’s past economic and cultural riches were nothing but an empty legend perpetuated by the
“susceptible imagination” of the Orientalists. What India needed was not a return to some glorious
mythical past, but improvement and change to be effected in the present through wise governance,
accompanied by good legislation. Mill was an important driving force behind the appointment, under
Lord Macaulay, of a Law Commission (1833), which drew up an Indian Penal Code (1835) on the
model of a centrally, logically and coherently formulated code.
A central difference between the Utilitarians and the Liberals was with regard to the question of
Anglicisation. While Liberals like Lord Macaulay advocated the introduction of English education in
India, Utilitarians like Mill favoured vernacular education as more suited to the immediate needs of
India. Thus, as Metcalf puts it, there was, around this time, a “dilemma” – an overlap – between
Liberalism and Utilitarianism in the ideological outlook in British India, epitomised by Lord
Bentinck, who abolished sati and female infanticide through legislation. Although an ardent believer
in effectiveness of the rule of law as an agent of change, he also had a deep sense of respect for
classical Indian traditions. Even the official discourse on the proposed reform of sati was grounded
in the logic that this practice was not sanctioned by the scriptures.

Downloaded by Nihal Malik ([email protected])