INTRODUCTION
1773 to 1858 was a long span of history consisting of relentless struggle and fight for power between the East India Company (“EIC”) and the British Crown. While the battle took place in India, the representation of ‘We the People’ remained absent, overshadowed by imperial ambitions and colonial exploitation. This gruelling history, marked by legislative interventions and extreme power struggles, left an indelible imprint on the governance structures that continue to shape our lives even today. This was a period of increasing control given to the British till the eventual takeover of administrative authority by the British Government. As the company officials sank into the trenches of corruption, India’s abundant resources became targets of exploitation, leading to widespread plundering. As the company tethered close to bankruptcy, the British government feared the unimaginable losses, that losing control over India would cause.
BRITISH CROWN’S ENTRANCE
The East India Company entered Indian borders in the early 1600s[1], however, it was in 1764, after the battle of Buxar, that the company got the ‘Diwani’ or the right to collect revenue taxes[2]. The Regulating Act, 1773[3] served as the entry point for the British into a rich and diverse India[4]. Amidst the backdrop of EIC’s financial crisis and rampant corruption by officials, the company was on the brink of bankruptcy. It approached the British Government to grant them a loan and in exchange, through the appointment of a governor-general and the establishment of an executive council, the British government began to assert its sovereign authority over Indian affairs. By creating such positions, the British began to display a weak form of control. The company resisted these advancements of the British, trying to prevent the slow encroachment and shift in the power dynamics within the country.
Through the next legislations like Pitt’s India Act 1784[5], The British continued to expand its ambit of power over the country. “This act established a board of control, to be appointed by the Crown, with authority to direct all operations relating to the civil and military government and revenues of India”[6]. The wings of EIC were slowly being clipped as it was restricted to indulge only in commercial activities as a dual form of government was introduced.
THE CHARTER ACTS
Through the Charter Act of 1793[7], it was established that EIC could continue its monopoly over trade for the next 20 years as an exclusive right and then there would be a review. In the Charter Act of 1813[8], the British government further reduced the company’s capacity, dismantling the trade monopoly and opening Indian markets to other companies[9]. The company could not retain more than 10% of profits and was no longer given any special rights or protection. Moreover, the introduction of missionary activities and the promotion of English education served as instruments of cultural imperialism, reinforcing British hegemony over Indian society.
The next Charter Act[10] was passed in the year 1833 which essentially removed EIC from its trading pedestal by not letting it derive any profits on commercial matters. Officials could remain and own their property but could not partake in active trading[11]. This was a smart ploy by the British to ensure the presence of EIC officials for the administrative work because they knew the Indian terrains far better. The governor-general of Bengal was made the governor-general of India to expand the ambit of powers as well. The Act passed in 1853[12] mandated yearly reviews on EIC’s trade and the company could be asked to leave the country at any moment. EIC knew that the end was close, it tethered onto the terrains of India by a thread. The British government allowed, for the first time, Indians to participate in the Civil Services Exam[13]. While this may seem like a first step towards Indian representation in administrative bodies, it was a mechanism to cope with the outgoing EIC officials. The British realised that India could not be managed properly by outsiders, and with the officials who did know India leaving, a new alternative was needed. India was simply too diverse when it came to religion, caste, regional terrain, etc. The practices and belief systems Indians so religiously followed were unlike anything that the British had ever encountered before with their other colonies. Another factor for a slow takeover of power could have been the established reputation of EIC. The people of India were already familiar with the company and its officials so it would have been easier for the British government to slowly penetrate the masses rather than shutting EIC out of India abruptly[14]. The Crown must have acknowledged its dependency on the company to ensure its long-term success in India when considering and implementing all such charter acts.
REVOLT OF 1857 AND ITS CONSEQUENCES
During the revolt of 1857, there was a large uprising against British rule as Hindus and Muslims united in resistance. This shook the administrative bodies to the core as the people in power finally realised how immeasurably powerful a united India is[15]. This tussle acted as the perfect opportunity for the British to play its final move against EIC. In response to the revolt and its aftermath, the British government swiftly enacted the Government of India Act of 1858[16], effectively abolishing EIC’s rule and transferring administrative authority directly to the British Crown. EIC had become a relic of the past, supplanted by direct British rule[17]. In that Act, they declared EIC a non-entity or, ‘persona non grata’ as the company was exiled from the country and its place stood the British Crown, ready to rule the people of India. The Crown assumed complete dominance, marking the culmination of a process that had begun decades earlier. While it did cause significant losses for the EIC and its affiliated members, somewhere in the background were the cries of Indians, who too had suffered from this drastic power shift.
CONCLUSION
While EIC only viewed India as a ground for commercial exploitation and monopoly over trade, the British had far more sinister intentions in mind. First hinted at through the introduction of missionaries into the country, the British did not just want commercial leverage, they wanted to colonise the minds of the people. They wanted to sink their claws into the flesh of Indian society so deep that its effects would be felt even after their departure. Even today, we hear the echoes of the effects of colonialism all because of economic greed. The greed of the kings who allowed EIC to enter India, the greed of the officials who used corrupt practices and finally the greed of the British Government who viewed India as their ideal colony. All the acts passed by the British were marked by the absence of any Indian voice or opinion. The war on control was waged between the EIC and the British government with utter disregard for the Indian masses. The gradual shift of powers from the EIC to the British was a well-implemented plan of the British to establish hegemony in India. The legislation simply served as tools of interference and display of authority, reinforcing British control, allowing them to colonise and sow seeds of destruction in its wake.
Author(s) Name: Suvarnagauri Kalbag (BML Munjal University, Haryana)
Reference(s):
[1] Joshua J Mark, ‘East India Company’ (World History Encyclopaedia, 18 September 2020) <https://www.worldhistory.org/East_India_Company/ > accessed 14 July 2024.
[2] S A Leonard, ‘A Theatre of Disputes’: The East India Company Election of 1764 as the Founding of British India’ (2014) 42(4) The Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History 593
[3] The Regulating Act, 1773
[4] Marie Xavier Loubert, ‘The Regulating Act of 1773: Background and Consequences’ (1956) Fordham University
[5] The Pitt’s India Act, 1784
[6] Theodore H Boggs, ‘The Government of India’ (1911) 26(2) Political Science Quarterly 290
[7] The East India Company Act, 1793
[8] The Charter Act, 1813
[9] Anthony Webster, ‘The Political Economy of Trade Liberalization: The East India Company Charter Act of 1813’ (1990) 43(3) The Economic History Review 404
[10] The Charter Act, 1833
[11] ‘Charter Act 1833’ (Drishti IAS, 17 January 2022) <https://www.drishtiias.com/paper1/charter-act-1833> accessed 11 July 2024.
[12] The Charter Act, 1853
[13] J M Compton, ‘Indians and the Indian Civil Service, 1853-1879: A Study in National Agitation and Imperial Embarrassment’ (1967) Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland 99
[14] George Allen Odgers, ‘Education in British India’ (1925) 8(2) The Phi Delta Kappan .
[15] ‘Revolt of 1857’ (Drishti IAS, 02 November 2020) <https://www.drishtiias.com/to-the-points/paper1/revolt-of-1857> accessed 13 July 2024.
[16] The Government of India Act, 1858
[17] ‘The Government of India Act of 1858’ (Central Board of Certification) <https://cbc.gov.in/cbcdev/crown/crown1.html> accessed 13 July 2024.
