¤ The Most Powerful - Cholas
For the moment, most of action shifts to the southern peninsula.
The most important dynasty to rise out of the southern India was that of the Cholas. Unlike most of the other dynasties (the Chalukyas, the Pallavas, the Pandyas or the Rashtrakutas), their origins are not traced from outside, but very much from the south itself.
The Deccan region was at this time in much turmoil. To begin with, the Cholas had managed almost immediately to reduce the Pallavas to the status of minor feudatories.
The Rashtrakutas were in decline now, but their place was taken by a resurgent branch of the Chalukya family (imaginatively called the later Chalukyas by historians) who were gaining strength in the region of western Deccan. The power equation in the Deccan now involved the later Chalukyas, the Yadavas of Devagiri (northern Deccan; region around Aurangabad), the Kakatiyas of Warangal (Andhra Pradesh) and the Hoysalas of Dorasamudra (Mysore). Much sorting out had to be done before the Cholas finally emerged as unchallenged authorities in the south. This they managed with sheer tenacity over a period of 300 years from 900-1100 AD – and even then for a short while only.
¤ Chola's Contribution To South Indian History
However, the Chola contribution to south Indian history is far more wide-ranging than just political. This period saw the final settling down and consolidation of Tamil culture. In whatever sphere – whether of social institutions, religion, fine arts, music, dance, jewellery – the standards that were set during this period came to be regarded as classical, and dominate, in a modified form, much of the living patterns of south Indians even today. This period also saw the spread of this culture overseas to Southeast Asia, regions with whom the Cholas had strong political and economic relations.
¤ Cholas Came Into Power
The Cholas came to power rather suddenly when one of family conquered Tanjore (in the middle of Tamil Nadu) and declared himself a king in the middle of the 9th century AD.
The first important ruler to emerge from the dynasty was Rajaraja Chola I (985-1014AD) and his son and successor Rajendra Chola (1014-1035AD). Both father and son put their heads down and campaigned in almost every direction. Rajaraja started with annexing large areas of the Deccan, defeating a powerful alliance between the Cheras (of Kerala region), the Pandyas and the rulers of Ceylon (Sri Lanka). This effectively broke the monopoly that these kingdoms had over the trade routes to Southeast Asia.
The Cholas had an effective navy and Rajaraja, with a view to control this trade route completely, led an attack to the Maldive Islands too.
Rajendra I ruled together with father for two years before going solo in 1014AD. He aggressively continued his father's imperialist policies with the annexation of the region around modern Hyderabad which was controlled by the Chalukyas at that time. He also turned his attention northwards where he reached right upto the Ganges valley, Orissa and west Bengal areas.
However, these were not areas that Rajendra held, or even seriously expected to hold, for long. What were really ambitious were Rajendra Chola's offshore expeditions, involving both the army and the navy against andaman and Nicobar Islands, the Malay Islands and Sumatra.
However, these were not colonizing forays, for he never tried to seriously consolidate or move in on his gains in these regions; they were in main campaigns to protect his trade routes with the Southeast Asian nations.
Rajendra Chola I was killed in 1052AD, in battle against his old foes the Chalukyas. The successors of Rajendra I were far too occupied with their problems within the peninsula to worry about overseas expansion. Almost throughout they remained at loggerheads with the Chalukyas, with both carrying attacks and revenge raids against each other.
¤ Declining of The Great Dynasty
However, by the middle of the 12th century Chola power was already deep into decline. The south was simply far too divided and no one kingdom stood out as a clear leader. The scene was again rapidly shifting to the north where much liveliness had occurred by this time.
¤ Islamic 'hordes' Made Their First Appearance
This is the time which saw the emergence of Delhi from the mists of obscurity that it had sunk into since it was first inhabited as Indraprastha.
It was what the historians call the 'early medieval' period of India – about the 11-12th century AD – when the much travelled Rajputs were floating restlessly around looking for a home before finally finding shelter in the Rajputana area.
Here the strategic location of Delhi came to play – it was the doorway to both the fertile Punjab, the fabled land of the fiver rivers, and the fertile Ganges valley.
But first, just who were these Rajputs? We come across the word 'Rajput' for the first time in the 7th century AD. There is no previous record or reference of it and it is certainly not a Sanskrit word. There are as many theories as there are historians about the origin of the Rajputs, including an opinion that they were descended from foreigners, from one of the Indo-Parthian, Indo-Bactrian, Indo-Scythian, Saka, Kushana or Hun strains that were already present in India for quite some centuries.
This might just be true, considering the elaborate genealogies that the Brahmans (the priest of the Indian varna or caste system) created to accord them the Kshatriya (warrior) caste. This was a status they always insisted upon, and still do, with surprising and almost undue vehemence. The Rajputs traced their lineage from a mythical fire atop Mount Abu, a mountain in Rajasthan, (Agni Kula or the Fire Family), the sun (Suryavanshi or the Sun Family) and the moon (Chandravanshi or the Moon Family).
¤ Ascent of Rajput Power
The time between the fading away of Harsha Vardhana (606-646AD) and with it the Vardhana might and the rise of Islamic power in India was occupied with the ascent of Rajput power. This, however, was a very short-lived period, mainly due to the in-fighting among the fiercely divided Rajputs.
As can be imagined, India under the Rajputs was not exactly what one could call a single and completely unified unit. Delhi and Ajmer, under the Chauhans, were the most powerful states of this period. However, the first Rajputs to hit Delhi were the Tomaras. In fact, the second city of Delhi, Lal Kot (the Red Fortress) was built in 1060A.D. by Raja Anang Pal, one of the earliest Tomara rulers to settle in Delhi. Their rule was pretty short-lived, though, and soon the Chauhan Rajputs under the generalship of Prithviraj Chauhan seized control of Lal Kot in the 12th century.
There were other states where Rajputs were gaining prominence. Like Kanauj (in present Uttar Pradesh) where in this period ruled Jaichand, a Rathore (another Rajput family) ruler, who was a bitter rival of Prithviraj Chauhan. In Bundelkhand (in M.P), the chandravansi (of the moon family) Chandelas were ruling. Malwa and Gujrat were were under the Paramaras (the most important ruler was king Bhoj) and Chaulukyas (who are supposed to descendants of the Chalukyas) respectively.
This was a very troubled time in Indian history. There was no clear central authority in sight and each petty ruler was daring to dream the mad dream of ruling all over the country – which at that point in time meant basically the Gangetic plains and the Deccan. This is the main reason why no ruler was able to hold Delhi long enough to establish a kingdom here, and also the principle reason why the Arabs and Turks didn't exactly have to sweat to the bone to stamp their authority all over them.
The Advent of Mahmud Ghazni
and then it happened. In 1000BC, as if on cue, the crescent appeared for the first time over the Indian horizons.
In 1000AD, Mahmud of Ghazni (Afghanistan) encroached upon Indian territories for the first time and then made these invasions almost an annual feature. What with no strong central power, looting the wealth of India to replenish the coffers of Ghazni must have been as easy as finding it. In all, Mahmud invaded India eleven times and the wealth he looted from here went into funding his campaigns in central Asia and mosques, libraries and museums in Ghazni.
Strangely enough, no confederacy appeared to ward off his invasions. After Mahmud's death in 1030AD, any chances of such a mutual consensus being reached among the rulers fizzled out since the significance of his raids as forerunners for others to follow was never quite grasped.
¤ Rajput Hero- Prithviraj
The Rajput clans remained almost constantly and thoroughly at war among themselves in the 11th and 12th centuries. It had become a matter of pride to use every supposed slight as an excuse for war, and the prevailing chivalric code allowed no place for either long-sightedness, clear thinking or strategy.
This was around the time that Prithviraj had married the daughter of the king of Kanauj Jaichand – in true Lochinvar style, by carrying her away in the middle of her wedding. The pride of the Kanauj had been stung and had to be avenged.
It so happened that an Afghan ruler Shihab-ud-din Muhammad Ghuri or Mohammad of Ghur (between Ghazni and Herat) was gathering his forces at the frontiers of India, this time in preparation for forcing his way through to Delhi. Even before his forces had rallied around him, the Afghan was surprised by an invitation from Jaichand who offered his help in any way possible to rub out Prithviraj Chauhan from the face of the earth.
However, the Rathore ruler had made one of the grossest miscalculations of his life – in supposing that Ghuri was just another invader looking for dipping into India's bottomless pit of wealth, he erred badly.
Ghuri wanted to establish a kingdom here, and in 1185AD he sent the Rajputs abuzz by taking Lahore. The rulers of north India then half-heartedly threw in their lot with the ruler of Delhi Prithviraj and were able to defeat Ghuri in the Battle of Tarain in 1191AD.
Unfortunately, here is where the foolhardiness of the Rajput code of honour came into play. Prithviraj had Ghuri captured and, when the latter appealed to his better nature, made the grand gesture of actually setting him free. If he had thought that Ghuri would go out and sin no more, he must have been much disappointed for the Afghan simply sent for reinforcements and launched another attack the very next year.
The battle of 1192 was fought at Tarain too; this time Ghuri crushed the Rajputs with one of those clinical and sound defeats that only the Central Asians knew best how to inflict. and when he had Prithviraj he didn't do any such fool thing as letting him go.
This difference in the psychological approach to war, more than anything else, was the undoing of the Indian rulers.
The Afghans and Turks regarded war as a serious business, a matter of life and death.
But for the Indian princes war seemed to have been a form sport, with its own rules of gallantry and chivalry, to show off their bravery and skill. Man to man, no doubt, the Rajputs were better warriors than the Afghans but, when it came to using their resources, the latter were superb at making each man count. The Rajputs failed to understand the crucial distinction between a battle and a war; strategic retreat, which was the strength of the Afghans and Turks, would have been scorned by them. On the other hand the Afghans were a more patient lot, and were willing to lose a battle to win the war.
¤ Muhammad Ghuri
The conquest of Delhi by Muhammad Ghuri would change the future of Indian history radically. A word here about the much-maligned 'Islamic hordes' who conquered India and 'stamped out' the so-called 'Hindu' culture.
With the coming of Ghuri came the long rule of Islamic rulers in the country, and for the first time India saw a succession of proper dynastic rule which it had not really seen uptill now.
There were no more gaps in rule anymore. No more hundred years of no central authority, and certainly no chaos like the one India had just witnessed before the Islamic conquest of India – until deep into the 18th century AD, for a very brief period before the British took over.
Even at their weakest the Islamic rulers were able to provide India with a strongly centralized government. This was largely due to the fact that the Turks stuck together, at first within themselves, and later reluctantly also with the Afghans. and even when the king was weak the Turks saw it as their duty to maintain a strong face and keep the show going.
¤ The Islamic Rule Over The Region
of course there were bad times, especially when the ruler suddenly decided to go more Islamic than thou and break temples (which were remodeled as mosques) built by the Hindus, a term which started being used around this time. However, this needs to be put in perspective. Muslims saw idol worship as a blasphemy against Allah and were shocked that the Hindus would think differently. Religious tolerance, especially under the Mughals, was practiced quite actively and even under the infamous Aurangzeb who had lots of political compulsions forcing him to act the way he did.
Also the 'long rule of oppression' under the Muslims for the Hindus is largely a myth. First and foremost the Turks and Afghans were shrewd rulers and even shrewder politicians; they were not really much bothered with God and godliness when it came to ruling. This is evinced by a proclamation from Ala-ud-din Khalji, one of the most powerful rulers of the Delhi Sultanate. He had decreed the state (i.e., himself) to be above the priesthood, and when the latter claimed this as un-Islamic and against the Sharia laws, he said, "I do not know whether this is lawful or unlawful; whatever I think to be for the good of or suitable for the state, that I decree; and as for what may happen to me on the Day of Judgement that I do not know." Clearly he was not losing much sleep over displeasing Allah.
If Qutub-ud-din Aibak and Altamash broke temples to use them in their own buildings, it was largely because they were rather short of both time and building material. Also, these rulers urged their troops on to fighting by raising the banner of jehad (Holy War); just like the kings of the Middle Ages urged on their armies to loot the treasures of the Byzantine empire under the cloak of the Crusades. So they had to give their troops some evidence and justification for raising the cry of a Holy War.
At least no mass destruction of books, wisdom and ancient treasures (as occurred in Constantinople, Egypt, the Americas and elsewhere) happened in India – the Arabs, Afghans and Turks, who were quite a scholarly and well-read lot themselves, knew when to stop. The destruction of temples stopped as soon as the Delhi Sultanate settled down and the sultans had more time and money in their hands, which in turn let them free to follow styles which suited their own tastes better.
Anyhow, Delhi and Ajmer passed on to Muhammad of Ghur, who then returned to his own country after leaving Qutubddin Aibak as his viceroy in Delhi. In 1206, when Muhammad was assassinated, Aibak crowned himself Sultan of Delhi, thus laying the foundation for the so-called Slave dynasty of Delhi (the founder having once been a slave), or the Delhi Sultanate.
¤ The Regime of Delhi Sultans
The Delhi Sultanate had a much longer reign in Delhi than any other dynasty that had come before it. In fact, it remained in power throughout the period between 1190 and 1526. The state's boundaries kept shifting, and at different times included Afghanistan and the Deccan, but the central dynasty did not budge till the Mughals arrived.
For the first some years the Sultanate was largely individual-driven, and given the rather communal tribal nature of the Afghan-Turk polity dynastic rule took its time to take hold. The first to begin the consolidation work the dynasty was Altamash (1211-1236AD), who was the son-in-law and successor of Qutub-ud-din Aibak. The Slave Dynasty is also famous for having given India its first woman king, Raziya Sultan (1237-1240AD), the daughter and successor of Altamash. She was followed by a very tough customer, Ghiyas-ud-din Balban (1266-1286AD) who gave the Delhi Sultanate its character and finished the consolidation work.
Balban left a strong base for his successors to build upon, and thankfully, the times got the right rulers. Now the Sultanate saw the rise of the Khaljis, together with Jala-ud-din Khalji (1290-1296AD) and Ala-ud-din Khalji (1296-1316AD), who were its first real dynasty. They were followed by the Tughlaqs who produced three strong rulers – Ghiyas-ud-din Tughlaq (1320-1414AD), Muhammad-bin-Tughlaq (1325-1351AD) and Feroze Shah Tughlaq (1350-1388AD).
After Feroze Shah’s death, the luck of the Delhi Sultanate ran out and it was sacked thoroughly and absolutely by Timur the Lame, the famous Persian ruler. This was however not the first time that India had been invaded since the Delhi Sultanate took charge. Almost throughout its history, the Sultanate was troubled by repeated invasions from the persistent Mongols (see History of Delhi for more on Mongol invasions). Although the sultans were able to successfully repel all Mongol advances, these invasions took their toll especially since entire armies had to raised and defense budgets allocated for frontier security. To raise the money to fund these, the sultans had to be almost continuously in battle with other areas of India.
¤ The Last Dynasty of Delhi- Lodis
. The ruler in Delhi was Ibrahim Lodi (1517-1526AD), who was a very unpopular king. Not only was he not in with the people of Delhi, who often had a mind of their own about who should rule them and did not shy away from expressing it, he actually fell out very badly with the Maliks (nobles).
Ibrahim believed in keeping his nobles firmly in their place – which was, according to him, much beneath the royal throne. In fact, so horrific were his dealings with those that displeased him in any way, real or imagined, that in the end his governor in Punjab, Dilawer Khan, appealed to the latest runaway from Samarkand who was camping in Kabul at that time for help.
The latter heeded this SOS with an alacrity that showed that such a campaign had been very much on his mind too. The voice of Dilawar Khan was strengthened by those of the Rajputs, especially Rana Sanga, the Rathore ruler of Mewar, who decided to use this new invader to get rid of the autocratic Ibrahim Lodi.
¤ Arrival of Mughals
Zahir-ud-din Muhammad Babur
Zahir-ud-din Muhammad Babur (1526-1530AD), who had the blood of the great central Asian families of Chingez Khan from his mother's side and that of Timur from his father's, had been hunting for a home to call his own since he was a teenager. He had been driven out of Samarkand, his home, and forced to set up a kingdom elsewhere by his cousins and uncles. Babur looked at Kabul in Afghanistan to start afresh. It was while he was here, building a kingdom for himself, that the Indian princes got in touch with him to help him rid of Ibrahim Lodi.
Much to his delight of course, for the ink was, so to speak, still wet on the pen with which he had written in his autobiography, Tuzuk-i-Baburi, "From the time I conquered the land of Kabul till now, I had always been bent on subduing Hindustan." That very year, in 1526, he crossed over the Indus to reach Panipat, where he defeated Ibrahim Lodi in one of the most significant battles of Indian history.
It was curtains now for the Delhi Sultanate. The Mughals had arrived.
Babur was a military general of formidable credentials and his troops would follow him everywhere, and indeed did for thoroughly battle-scarred his tenure. The first person he defeated was Rana Sanga who was perhaps appalled at Babur's obvious intentions of getting comfortable and staying on in Delhi. After taking Mewar, Babur moved on other battlefields, defeating many kingdoms with a speed which was astonishing.
By the end of it all, Babur had managed to firmly establish the Mughals as the new order to salute in India. He died in controversial circumstances. Some say he was poisoned. There is a more romantic version – apparently, his son and successor Humayun had taken ill, and Babur appealed to God that He should spare the son and take his life instead.
Humayun
His son Humayun succeeded him in 1530AD, and ruled till 1556AD, in between which there was a break of 16 years when Sher Shah Suri (1540-1556), an Afghan noble, overthrew him. However, after a long struggle Humayun was able to take back his kingdom when Sher Shah Suri died. Not for long though, for Humayun died the very same year by slipping from the staircase of his library. Babur had been a great man, soldier, poet and writer; his son was a poet and remained one till the very end, despite the mantle of kingship being thrust upon him.
Humayun's troubled life, in which he was constantly at pains to reconcile his erudite scholarly nature with the demands of kingship (a struggle which in the end resulted in a severe opium addiction), in the end seemed to justify a couplet which he liked quote:
"Oh Lord, of thine infinite goodness make me a part;
Make me a partner of the knowledge of thy attributes;
I am broken-hearted from cares and sorrows of life;
O calls to thee thy poor madman and lover;
Grant me my release."
Akbar The Great
With the passing away of Humayun, came to end the teething problems of the imperial Mughal dynasty for his son was undoubtedly the greatest ruler India ever produced. Soon after ascending the throne as a mere kid of 14, Jalal-ud-din Muhammad Akbar (1556-1605AD) started to prove why he earned the epithet of Akbar the Great. When Akbar came to throne all his father had left behind were poor fragments of military conquests for him to make sense out of. While Humayun would have given up, Akbar thrived; challenge became him, whether physical or metaphysical.
Every ruler in India at that time knew that Humayun had just barely managed to take his kingdom back and all eyes were on young Akbar – Sikander Sur, Sher Shah Suri's grandson was still around trying to get the kingdom back; the powerful Rajputs from behind their invincible fortresses, the states of Gujrat and Malwa; even the southern kingdoms – they were waiting for his next move.
The Famous Battle of Panipat Took Place
In 1556AD 14-year-old Akbar led his first army to battle in the famous old battlefield of Panipat which no doubt was a sentimental moment for him because, like all Mughals, he was fiercely clannish. The Second battle of Panipat was fought in between him and Hemu, the Prime Minister of the Sultan of Bengal, who had set out against Akbar the moment he heard the news about Humayun's death. This battle was to decide the future of the young Mughal for Hemu was a formidable antagonist. The Sultan of Bengal, Muhammad Shah Abdali, was but a cipher in the state of affairs in Bengal and Hemu was the l'homme principle. On the way to Panipat he had scared away the Mughal governor in Agra and occupied it. In the battle with so many odds stacked against him, Akbar managed to decisively beat Hemu. What helped him was that Hemu got a little carried away and arrived in battle on an elephant, which made him a pretty much a sitting duck; Akbar shot him an arrow right into the eye. As soon as this occurred Hemu's army panicked and ran away, and Hemu himself was killed by Akbar.
If the first battle of Panipat signalled the arrival of the Mughals, the second was of greater importance. All the pretensions to sovereignty which the Afghans had clung on to since the days of Sher Shah Suri were finally crushed under the advancing Mughal heels.
With this victory Akbar sent a clear signal all over India – he was undoubtedly the Mughal king and intended to be, and was taken seriously. Akbar fought battles all over India, and at the end of it all had an empire that stretched down to the present Karnataka in the south, touching right upto the Hindukush range in the north, all of Rajasthan in the west and after taking in Kashmir and Bihar going on to Bengal in the east.
Akbar ruled the greatest empire that India saw before the British and ruled it with far more authority. One man sitting in his Red Fort in Agra ruled this entire empire with an iron hand.
Akbar - A Great Diplomat
Akbar was not only a good military man but he had a great head for diplomacy and statesmanship as well. He is famous for his Rajput diplomacy, which included some strategic matrimonial alliances (an idea he was the first to use), that turned the fiercely independent Rajputs from his bitter enemies to staunch allies who were ready to lay down their lives for him. He also made many reforms in administration and army management, and started many innovations.
Diplomacy apart, Akbar was a great visionary in many other fields – like art (painters of his court studied styles from far and wide), philosophy and religion (in 1581 he started a national religion which was an amalgam of Hindu, Islamic and Zoroastrian tenets called the Din-i-Illahi or the religion of God), music, literature and so on. Akbar also held deliberations in religion and philosophy with Buddhists, Jains and Christians, in particular the Jesuits. His court was famous for its nauratan (nine gems) or nine experts chosen over the years from various artistic fields, like Abul Fazl the historian, Raja Birbal the wit, Mia Tansen the legendary singer and so on. There are many stories about Akbar and his nine gems; the ones involving Raja Birbal and him are still popular all over India.
Jahangir
In 1600AD, his son and eventual successor, Jahangir rebelled against Akbar when he away in the Deccan engaged in battle. In the confusion of events to follow, Abul Fazl was killed, which made the great Mughal emperor livid with his son. In fact, he started toying with the idea of making Prince Khusro, his grandson, the heir apparent.
This Khusro was a big favorite with the army for his valor and also with the people for his good looks. Realizing his folly Jahangir threw himself at his father's mercy in Agra. The latter, being in no mood to forgive and forget, took his time in coming around but eventually did.
In October 1605 Akbar fell ill and in November that same year that small boy who had stared so many years ago at the battlefield where his grandfather had won such a famous victory, died as king-emperor, the greatest king to have ever ruled India.
Jahangir was crowned emperor by his father when the latter had been on his deathbed in 1605. He had to face the usual share of revolts and rebellions. The very first one being from prince Khusro, in which he was in good company – for Khusro revolted when Jahangir's son, Shah Jahan, came to the throne as well. The single most important person in Jahangir's life was his wife, the enigmatic Nur Jahan, whom he married in 1611.
Nur Jahan - The Queen With Marvelous Talents
Nur Jahan was the real power behind Jahangir. She was a great queen, and a woman of amazing gifts. She was quite a beauty and set many trends in designs of clothes, textiles and jewellery. The attar (perfume) of roses was just one of this great lady's innovations. She was also a very capable and shrewd administrator. No detail, however small, escaped the queen's attention. Her ability to keep a cool head was almost legendary and she amazed even battle-hardy generals with her calm and poise in the middle of crisis. She has been accused of nepotism and of giving rise to a class of nobility which composed entirely of her kith and kin, but that she was entirely in control is clear from the fact that she rebuked even her brother when she thought so fit. Jahangir often remarked: "I have sold my kingdom to my beloved queen for a cup of wine and a bowl of soup."
However, Nur Jahan was not without failings and her biggest was ambition, not only for herself but for her child – a daughter from earlier marriage. She tried her best to keep the king and the rightful heir Shah Jahan separated and to make her daughter's husband the king. However, this was one project that Nur Jahan could not complete with success.
Jahangir was not a mere figurehead in his kingdom. He led his armies into battle a number of times and extended the frontiers of his empire further down in the Deccan, although he lost Kandhar. This loss, however, was not his fault but that of the bitter in-fighting between Shah Jahan and his stepmother. Nur Jahan ordered Shah Jahan to move in battle against a rebellion there, but the prince, suspicious of her motives, refused and revolted against Jahangir instead. The emperor got so occupied with his family affairs that he simply forgot about winning Kandhar back, even though it would have been a matter of just a few days siege.
Things became so bad that Jahangir had to resort to the extreme measure of kidnapping his own grandchildren away to Kashmir with him to stop his son. Depsite all this however Shah Jahan, being a huge favorite with the nobility, safely ascended the throne in 1627, when Jahangir died.
Shah Jahan
The reign of Shah Jahan has been widely acclaimed as the golden period of the Mughal dynasty. There are many reasons for this. Thanks to the firm base left by his grandfather and father, Shah Jahan's reign was relatively peaceful and hence prosperous.
Except for one drought in 1630 in the areas of Deccan, Gujrat and Khandesh, the kingdom was secure and free from poverty. The coffers of the state were brimming with the right stuff. So it's no wonder that Shah Jahan was the greatest and most assiduous builder of the Mughal dynasty.
In 1639, he decided to shift his capital to Delhi and construct a new city there on the banks of the Yamuna, near Ferozabad. It was to be called Shahjahanabad and the famously spectacular peacock throne (the one that Nadir Shah took away) was transferred from Agra to the Red Fort, the new seat of the Mughal rulers, on April 8, 1648.
Military and building genius apart, Shah Jahan's capacity for hard work was legendary. Within a year of his taking reins, the revenue of the state had went up in leaps and bounds.
However, his greatest and most memorable of achievements of course was the breathtaking Taj Mahal, which he built in the memory of his wife Mumtaz Mahal, who died in child birth.
There were downsides too. He was a bigoted Muslim and a confirmed nepotist. He provided for the imperial princes before anyone else in the matter of administrative and judicial postings regardless of age, capability and talent. He also started the practise of conferring the cream of the offices on each prince; like Dara Shikoh was made the governor of Punjab and Multan, Aurangzeb was appointed governor of all the four provinces of the Deccan and so on. This might have been just a clever way to keep them occupied, but that was not how the nobility viewed it. The nobles saw this, and rightfully so, as an obstacle in the path of their promotions.
End of Shah Jahan
However, the end of Shah Jahan's reign did not live up to the beginning; it saw one of the messiest battles of succession (also see History in Delhi) that Indian history ever witnessed. In September 1657, Shah Jahan fell ill. The prognosis was so unoptimistic that the rumors had it that the emperor was dead. This was enough to spark off intense intrigue in the court. All the four claimants to Shah Jahan's throne were the children of the same mother – although one would never have guessed that from their temperaments and their determination to make it to the throne.
In 1657, Dara Shikoh was 43, Shah Shuja 41, Aurangzeb 39 and Murad 33. All of them were governors of various provinces: Dara was the governor of Punjab, Murad of Gujrat, Aurangzeb of the Deccan and Shah Shuja of Bengal. Two of them emerged clear frontrunners in the battle for the throne quite early: Dara Shikoh and Aurangzeb.
Aurangzeb
Aurangzeb was with doubt the ablest of Shah Jahan's sons and a clear favorite for the throne. His credentials both in battle and administration were legendary. He was also an orthodox Muslim of the oldest school possible, which made him a hot favorite with the clergy.
As stated earlier, the actual events which unfolded around Shah Jahan's illness were confused. Aiding and abetting the confusion with every word and gesture, for his own aims and purposes, was the favorite son Dara Shikoh. Aurangzeb did not waste much time. Acting on Dara Shikoh's behalf, Aurangzeb along with Murad met the Mughal armies twice in battle, and beat them each time while moving on relentlessly towards Agra, where Shah Jahan was convalescing.
When Shah Jahan heard of Aurangzeb's advance, he expressed a wish to meet Aurangzeb and talk to him. It was the emperor's belief that upon seeing him alive, his son would turn on his heels and go back. Clearly the old king had been ailing only in body and not in mind, for certainly the appearance of Shah Jahan himself would have laid to rest the whole issue of succession. Even the most ardent of Aurangzeb's supporters would have had second thoughts about defying the great Mughal's authority openly.
However, Dara Shikoh lacked the potentate's easy confidence in his son. He was not so convinced that Aurangzeb would meekly go back to where he had come from once he had been reassured by the king. In panic he also gave out that he was the heir-apparent.
So with suspicion and rumours ruling the day and power having the last laugh, Aurangzeb was the most amused of them all. Within a year he had all his brothers out of the way, father permanently in custody in the Agra Fort (where he hung on for eight years before dying in 1666) and was firmly entrenched on the Mughal throne.
If Shah Jahan has been over-romanticised by scholars, his son and successor Aurangzeb has been unduly denigrated. Aurangzeb, it seems, could do nothing right. Later writers were to contrast his bigotry with Akbar's tolerance, his failure against the Marathas rebels with Akbar's successes against the Rajputs; in fact he has been set up as the polar opposite of everything that earned one the Akbarian medal of genius. One writer has said about him, rather tongue-in-cheek, "His life would have been a blameless one, if he had no father to depose, no brothers to murder and no Hindu subjects to oppress."
Aurangzeb Ruled India As A Single Largest State
This picture of him has left such an impact on popular imagination that even today he is regarded as the bad guy of the Mughal regime, the evil king who slayed all Hindus and Sikhs. Hardly anyone remembers that he governed India for nearly as long as Akbar did (over 48 years) and that he left the empire larger than he found it. In fact, Aurangzeb ruled the single largest state ever in Mughal history.
Aurangzeb's rise to the throne has been criticised as being ruthless. However, he was no more cruel than others of his family. He succeeded not because he was crueller but because he was more efficient and more skilled in the game of statecraft with its background of dissimulation; and if it's any consolation, he never shed unnecessary blood. Once established he showed himself a firm and capable administrator who retained his grip of power until his death at the age of 88. True, he lacked the magnetism of his father and great-grandfather, but commanded an awe of his own. In private life he was simple and even austere, in sharp contrast to the rest of the great Mughals. He was an orthodox Sunni Muslim who thought himself a model Muslim ruler.
Aurangzeb's Reign Divides To Two Portions.
The first twenty-three years were largely a continuation of Shah Jahan's administration with an added footnote of austerity. The emperor sat in pomp in Delhi or progressed in state to Kashmir for the summer.
From 1681 he virtually transferred his capital to the Deccan where he spent the rest of his life in camp, superintending the overthrow of the two remaining Deccan kingdoms in 1686-7 and trying fruitlessly to crush the Maratha rebellion. The assured administrator of the first period became the embattled, embittered old man of the second.
Along with the change of occupation came a dramatic metamorphosis of character. The scheming and subtle politician became an ascetic; spending long hours in prayer, fasting and copying the Quran, and pouring out his soul in tortured letters. It was in the second or the Deccan phase of his career that Aurangzeb began to drift towards complete intolerance of Hindus.
Earlier his devotion towards Islam had very rarely taken the form of any religious bigotry. Now all that changed – the very king who had ordered in February 1659 that "It has been decided according to our cannon law that long standing temples should not be demolished… our Royal Command is that you should direct that in future no person shall in unlawful ways interfere with or disturb the Brahmins and other Hindu residents in those places" became a total fanatic.
In this zealousness to promote the cause of Islam, Aurangzeb made many fatal blunders and needless enemies. He alienated the Rajputs, whose valuable and trusted loyalty had been so hard won by his predecessors, so totally that they revolted against him. Eventually he managed to make peace with them, but he could never be easy in his mind about Rajputana again, a fact that hampered his Deccan conquest severely. Then, he made bitter enemies in the Sikhs and the Marathas. Things came to such a head that Guru Teg Bahadur, the 9th Guru of the Sikhs was at first tortured and then executed by Aurangzeb for not accepting Islam; a martyrdom which is mourned to this day by the Sikh community. The 10th Guru of the Sikhs, Guru Govind Singh then raised an open banner of revolt against Aurangzeb.
End of Aurangzeb's Regime
No, Great-grandfather Akbar would certainly not have approved or been amused. He would have raised his imperial eyebrows at such a royal mess and sharply rebuked Aurangzeb for squandering away what he had worked so hard to achieve. Deccan or no Deccan.
Aurangzeb ended his lonely embittered life in Aurangabad in 1707. Perhaps with relief, but surely with much grief too for surely he knew that with him set the glorious sun that was the Mughal dynasty.
The gallery of the great Mughals is completed by Aurangzeb's son Bahadur Shah, commonly neglected because his reign lasted barely five years. He was an old man (by contemporary standards) of sixty-three when he acceded, yet his achievements in time would have done credit to most men in their prime. He made settlements with the implacable Marathas, tranquillised the Rajputs, decisively defeated the Sikhs in the Punjab, and took their last Guru into his services. He was travelling throughout his reign and only came to rest in Lahore in the last few months of his life.
From here on, the Mughal dynasty begins to disintegrate, and with surprising speed. Many directly blame Aurangzeb and his destructive policies which eroded the faith of the subjects in the Mughals for this. However, this is by far an overstatement. Whatever might have been Aurangzeb's policies, he remained very much the emperor till his dying breath in 1707. True, his policies did lead to resentment; even at the end of Shah Jahan's reign the rot had set in. Aurangzeb in fact tried to stop it and did a good band-aid job for a little while, but then things just went haywire with his persistent Deccan devil.
Deccan wrung Aurangzeb the man, the king, the father and the believer out of all softer emotions and decorum. He simply lost all sense of balance. He alienated a sizeable portion of his subjects along with allies and employees and made completely unnecessary enemies which cost his successors dearly. He tried during his lifetime to put down rebellions all over his empire (the Marathas, the Sikhs, the Satnamis and the Rajputs) by one hand while trying to take Deccan with the other. However, it was like trying to put out a wild fire. Ultimately, it was these alternative power blocs which were cropping up all over the country that sped up the fall of the Mughals. Not to mention the foreign powers who were already among those present: the British stretching their legs in Calcutta, the Portuguese in Goa and the French testing waters in the South.
of course, it did not help matters that the successors of the great Mughals were weak and unworthy of their forefathers. But that was bound to happen some time or the other, wasn't it? So, from the late-18th century the field was wide open for any new power that wanted to try to set up shop in India.
This was the time when a certain East India Company suddenly realized that they had stumbled upon a gold mine.
Modern Indian History
¤ European Influence Over India
The period from 1707AD, the year when Aurangzeb died, to 1857, the year of the Indian Uprising, saw the gradual increase of the European influence in India. The Europeans had been filtering into India for a long time before they actually decided to set up shop here. Even though the British got away with the jackpot, the real pioneers to reach India were the Portuguese.
Full of crusading and commercial zeal, Vasco da Gama was the first known European to reach India in 1498, even before the Mughals arrived here. When Vasco da Gama docked his ship in Calicut, he announced that he came in search of "Christians and spices" and the very first people he met here were Christians, who were descendants of those who had settled in India way back in the 4th century AD.
¤ Portuguese Rule
Religious fervor forgotten, the Portuguese eventually settled down to a very prosperous trade in spices with India. The Muslim rulers in Delhi and then the Mughals never really warmed up to the idea of a foreign power continuing trade on the seas under their imperial noses. What's more, they were not exactly very honest traders too, since they thought that no word that was given to an infidel need be kept. So much so that the word phirangi, or foreigner in colloquial, came to be a hissing and a byword among locals. In fact in Goa, where the Portuguese ruled, intolerance levels ran high and even the building of Hindu temples was banned.
Alberquerque (1509-1515), who was the second Portugese viceroy in India, encouraged mixed marriages with the sole object of creating a mixed race who were Portuguese Catholics, and who would be bound by race and culture to the Portuguese. They were known as Luso-Indians at one time and now simply as Goans. One of main reasons why Portugal was never able to go anywhere further than Goa was that Spain took over the country in 1580AD.
¤ Advent of Dutch
The Dutch came shipping in the East for the first time in 1595. However, they did not come to India initially, and established themselves at the helm of things in the spice trade in Jakarta. India came into the picture for them purely as a route to Europe, as part of a great Asian trade route that they developed which went through Ceylon and Cape Town.
Although the Dutch had their factories dotting all over (in Cochin, Nagapatam and even up in Agra) they did not attempt to gain military power, being quite content to gain in cash.
¤ French Invaders
Although the French King Loius XII had granted letters of monopoly to French traders in 1611, it wasn’t until December 1667 that a French company was actually set up in India. This was at Surat (in Gujrat) with Francis Caron as its Director-General. Soon, in 1669, another French company came up in Masulipatnam, thanks to a grant by the king of Golconda which exempted the French from paying import and export duty. In 1672, Caron's place was taken by Francis Martin, who is regarded as the real founder of the French.
¤ English Formed East India Company
The English formed their East India Company on the last day of 1600 and entered the East Indies hand in hand with the Dutch. Their foes were common – the Portuguese and Catholic Spain – and this brought them closer. However, familiarity breeds contempt, and soon the English realized that the Dutch were not willing to share their space in Spice Islands (East Indies) with them.
Things became grim enough for the British to finally run away and find refuge in India. It was this success of the Dutch to hang on, with characteristic tenaciousness to the Spice Islands that finally made the British to settle on India as the second-best; because spices in India were essentially only in the south where the local rulers and other Europeans already had a monopoly.
of course, they ran into trouble in their very first step, so to speak, with the Portuguese. However, here the British luck turned; perhaps the Raj was destined, after all. As said earlier, the Portuguese were not winning any popularity contests in India, and then with Spain coming into the scene they were hard pressed for resources. Finally what won the east was that old trump card of the British, their naval supremacy.
In 1612 the Mughal emperor Jahangir received Sir Thomas Roe, the first ambassador of the British to Indian aristocracy. Roe’s diplomacy with the Mughals was so successful that by a treaty in 1618 the East India Company became their unspoken, unsaid, naval aide. By 1674 Bombay came to the British as part of the dowry of Charles II's Portuguese queen Catherine, and from here they never looked back. 1708 or the dawn of the Modern Indian Era found them quite comfortably placed in India, commercially that is.
¤ Declining of Mughal Regime
Post Aurangzeb the decline of the Mughals was shockingly swift . A confused state of affairs reigned supreme in India before the British finally took control. It is hardly surprising that the more insular Brits thought it was their divine right or the Whiteman's burden to set the house in order for the natives who seemed to be their own worst enemies.
Powerful nobility was ruling the day at the Mughal court whose grandiose and power had fallen into disarray and disgrace. Nautch girls, poetry and wine flowed; unfortunately so did the gold from the coffers of the treasury. Clearly it was that twilight zone; when dynasties just linger on for want of anything or anyone better.
¤ Invasion of Nadir Shah
Then there were the inevitable, though disastrous, invasions. The first of these was led by the famous Persian king Nadir Shah in 1739. At this time the court in Delhi was busy fighting the Marathas and one of their best generals, Nizam-ul-Mulk was in war against them.
Nizam met Nadir when the latter arrived near Delhi and succeeded in changing his mind about sacking Delhi by offering him a booty of Rs 50,00,000. However, here again court politics had the upper hand; one of Nizam's rival generals convinced Nadir he was settling for too little and the fabulous riches of Delhi were to be seen to be believed. So Nadir marched over to Delhi in time to have a khutba read in his name. Unfortunately, around this time a rumour started doing the rounds that Nadir was dead, which was not only celebrated by the inhabitants of Delhi, but everyone got bold enough to actually attack a few Iranian soldiers.
The result was that on March 11, 1739 an order went forth from Nadir Shah, and yet another one of those terrible massacres that Delhi was a regular witness to took place. The areas of Chandini Chowk, the fruit market, the Dariba bazaar and the buildings around Jama Masjid were burnt to cinders. Each and every inhabitant of the area was killed as an example. The people of Delhi will still point at the Khooni Darwaza (Blood Gate) in the old city and tell you about the massacre which happened here as if it were only yesterday. The royal treasury was sacked and its contents seized. When Nadir Shah left Delhi after 57 days of staying here, he also took along the fabulous Peacock Throne of the Mughals with him. and along with it also the final vestiges of the Mughal pride.
¤ Afghans Invaded Delhi With Ahmad Shah Abdali
The next invasion that rocked Delhi was led by the Afghans, with Ahmad Shah Abdali, an ex-general of the same Nadir Shah, as their commander. Abdali led as many as seven invasions into India between 1748-1767.
After the plundering that Delhi received by Nadir Shah, the Mughals seemed to have just given up. Abdali was all over the place ransacking Lahore, Punjab and so on, but it seemed like the Delhi court couldn't care less. It was left to the powers-that-be, the Marathas, to face the Abdali challenge. He promptly reduced the Marathas to the powers-that-had-been in the third and final battle of Panipat on January 13, 1761.
That was one of the reasons why the British found India completely at a loose end when they came here – most of the rising powers had been ground to dust by invading armies before they could amount to anything.
¤ Abdali Captured Delhi
In January 1757 a carnage of the Nadir Shah vintage was repeated. After pillaging Delhi the Afghans marched on to overrun most of Northern India. It is said that following the ransacking of the cities of Mathura, Brindaban and Gokul, for `seven days the waters of the Jamuna flowed of a blood-red colour.’
An outbreak of cholera in his army forced Adbali to withdraw; but not before he had made the Delhi court cough up around 120,000,000 rupees (that the Delhi court still had that kind of money speaks for the unbelievable riches which the Mughals once commanded). Also he demanded, and got, Kashmir, Lahore, Sirhind and Multan. This was unfortunately not the last time that Abdali invaded India.
It was left to the powers-that-be, the Marathas, to face the next Abdali challenge. Seeing the ruins of a powerful kingdom and the immense riches that Hindustan had in its womb in Delhi, Abdali thundered in again. On January 13, 1761, he took on the Maratha confederation under Bhao Rao, promptly reducing them to the powers-that-had-been in the third and final battle of Panipat. This was the end of the Maratha power in the north, for they stayed away for the next 10 years.
Abdali returned in 1764, driven once again by a hunger not for power but for gold. His sixth invasion had the Sikhs (who had by then carved out a kingdom under the famous Maharaja Ranjit Singh) up in arms. The determined Sikh power had put up a stiff challenge not only for Abdali, but were the main reason why the Marathas were never able to be very successful up north. When Abdali invaded India for the last time in 1767, they managed to inflict defeat on him and the Sikhs took Lahore and Central Punjab. However the areas from Peshwar up remained with Abdali.
It was an India exhausted with war and battle; an India badly in need, and indeed glad, of someone who could take charge. She had gone around a circle in the cycle of history. It was a great leap too – from the cultured, sophisticated and erudite civilisation under the Mughals to the power hungry and superstitious dark ages of the late 18th and 19th century. The status of women in society fell like never before: Huge weddings which were a drain to the bride's family took place; oppression reared its nasty head in the form of a rigid caste system (even with the Muslims); and Sati, the Rajput ritual of a widow being cremated with her dead husband, and so on which were never a part of Indian 'culture' became so now.
No, we were not putting on out best faces for the phirangis.
¤ British Rises To Power
Against this troubled backdrop the British rise to power was slow, but remarkably steady. Slow because the path was far from smooth; first there were the French to deal with. The commercial rivalry that cropped up with such a vengeance amongst the British and the French had roots in the prevailing political situation in Europe, and even then as long as the French carried on business in a small way in India the British left them to themselves.
The real trouble started between 1720 and 1740, when the French company's trade with India increased by about ten-fold to come up to half the volume that the English company was generating at that time. Now the stakes were just too much for each to ignore the other – especially taking in the factor that this Indian trade amounted for more than ten percent of Mother England's revenue.
This was the time when the War of Austrian Succession (1740-48) had broken out in Europe, following Fredrick the Great of Prussia's seizure of Silesia in 1740. The French and British found themselves in opposing camps in this war. Later, during the Seven Years War too (1756-63) both were at loggerheads with each other, supporting rival camps. These two wars of Europe, by Europe and for Europe in the end totally changed the balance of power as India knew it.
¤ The War Between French and English Arose
Between 1746-48 the French and English finally came to blows in the first Carnatic War (1746-48) in the Deccan. There were two more of these skirmishes and they were to seal the fate of the French company as far as India was concerned. The first Carnatic War was merely an echo of the Austrian War of Succession as said earlier. The fight was over Madras and though the French captured it, it was given back to the English as part of the Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle of 1748.
What had happened in the meanwhile was that the British and the French had got their fleets upto the Indian mainland, an important development as the balance of power was now shifting fast in the favor of the Europeans. and Dupleix, the French governor of the time, decided that this power could be used to gain a support base within the country.
¤ Dupleix The French Governor
Dupleix was a very shrewd and resourceful character, with great diplomatic skills, and his understanding of local politics was formidable, though flawed by a hyper temperament which made him extremely difficult to work with. The perfect opportunity came in 1748 when the Nawab of Arcot (in present Tamil Nadu) died and the question of who would succeed him arose.
Dupleix was so successful in his intrigue that he succeeded in enthroning a Nizam of his choice, Chanda Sahib. The new Nizam was supported by the old Nawab's grandson Muzzafar Jung and backed up by French troops under the able command of De Bussy.
The idea was to close in on Madras by surrounding it with French territory. The plan would have developed pretty neatly but for Robert Clive, sent away to Madras by his family to become a clerk, who turned out to be a brilliant strategist.
His seizure of Arcot in 1751 with a mere 210 men upset all of Dupleix's subtle strategies. Chanda Sahib was killed and a British nominee was put on the Arcot throne. Two years later Dupleix was recalled to France.
Dupleix was succeeded by Godeheu, who sued for peace with the British. By the new treaty both the French and the British agreed not to interfere in Indian internal matters and went back to their old positions. But though the British got a town the French agreed to give up everything they had taken so far. Godeheu was denounced for having "signed the ruin of the country and the dishonor of the nation," but the damage was done. The British emerged much stronger after the second Carnatic War.
The third and final phase of this Anglo-French war for supremacy was brought on by the Seven Years War in the shape of the third Carnatic War (1756-63). However, despite some heroics by French generals like De Bussy and Lally, the British were able to decisively beat the French who eventually lost practically everything they had in India. With the close of the third Carnatic War, the French were finished as far as India was concerned. Thanks to their superior sea-power, greater resources and steadier support from Europe, the English were able to vanquish the dream of dominion de l'empire de la France in India forever.
¤ The Revolt of 1857
Since then the story of the British rise to power in India became sort of predictable. Except for one small hiccup in 1857 during the Indian Uprising. Debate has continued and will always go on about whether 1857 was actually the first Indian War of Independence or simply a mutiny. Well, a little of both, we conclude. It was far too limited in its scope and aims to be dignified as the first Indian War of Independence; but nor was it that restricted that one can dismiss it as just a mutiny.
There is enough evidence to support the fact that the Uprising had been planned for months before the actual outbreak. What the revolutionaries did, apart from the fact that they failed to spread the word beyond Central India and Delhi, was that the Uprising did not go according to plan. It broke out before the appointed date; if D-day had gone according to schedule the Uprising would have broken out in many areas simultaneously, and then it would have been very difficult for the British to control it. However, as things were, trouble broke out sporadically in various places in May 1857 and there was little, if any, co-ordination about the whole thing. So, the British were able to curb it with relative ease.
¤ Cultural Revolution In Progress
For a long time before 1857, a cultural revolution had been in progress in Indian society. As a result of this Sati was banned, new religions like the Arya Samaj were formed, education for women was encouraged and a whole new breed of intellectuals – mostly from Bengal – came to the forefront.
This new breed of rich Indian was well-read and also well-travelled; of course, this meant that a new age of political awareness was rising out of the mists of the turmoil that had immediately preceded. As a result the British, or rather an administrator called A O Hume, convinced the then Governor General of India Lord Dufferin that it might be profitable to have roughly a sort of His Majesty's opposition comprising of Indian politicians in India who would advice the government.
Though Dufferin was not exactly convinced of what good the idea would do, he okayed it and so in December 1885 the Indian National Union (which would soon be renamed Indian National Congress) met in Bombay. Seventy-two delegates came from different parts of India, and presiding them was Dadabhai Naoroji, an eminent lawyer and political leader.
¤ Indian National Congress
So was born the party that must surely have given the British government much cause to regret that they had ever thought it up at all. For, much to the British government's chagrin, the Indian National Congress took its job seriously. In its early phase, which is called the phase of the Moderates (1885-1905), the Congress was thoroughly loyal to the British.
Its members were British in all aspects except where it mattered the most, in colour. They were a class of elite erudite men who were into philosophy and intellectual discussions; the much more popular `peoples’ leaders’ were to follow. Dadabhai Naoroji, the most prominent among their leaders observed: "Let us speak out like men and proclaim that we are loyal to the backbone; that we understand the benefits the English rule has conferred upon us."
Understandably, the man on the road was hardly aware they were alive. and nor, if their attitude is anything to go by, was the British government.
¤ The Policies of British Government Leads To Dissatisfactions
In 1907 there was split in the Congress as those members who were unsatisfied with the scheme of affairs under the Moderates, including popular leaders like Lala Lajpat Rai and Bal Gangadhar Tilak, parted company with them. This hardly helped their cause because for the next eight years the Congress, for all contents and purposes, went into hibernation.
This was the time when extreme nationalists came into the scene, especially after the controversial partition of Bengal into west and east Bengal in 1905 by the highly unpopular and obnoxiously highhanded Lord Curzon. The decision evoked sharp reactions from all over India and there was violent agitation against it.
October 16, 1905, the day on which the partition came into effect, was observed as a day of mourning and fasting throughout Bengal. Rabindranath Tagore, the famous Nobel-laureate and writer, spoke out against it through a passionate poem. This was the time when the Swadeshi movement was first launched; that is, Indians burnt foreign clothes, cigarettes, soap and anything made across the seas in huge bonfires and turned to Indian made articles instead. Many factories manufacturing indigenous clothes, textiles and whatever else was required were set up. Lots of earnest young leaders of Bengal took up the task of educating people. On August 15, 1906, a national council of education was introduced under the educationist Aurobindo Ghose.
The government came down heavily on the demonstrations, choosing to break up meetings, insult leaders and beat up peaceful protestors. In 1907, leaders Lala Lajpat Rai and Sardar Ajit Singh were deported from the Punjab. In 1908, Bal Gangadhar Tilak was arrested and sentenced to six years imprisonment. Aurobindo Ghose was arrested, prosecuted and though acquitted, chose to retire to Pondicherry.
The agitation to oppose the partition of Bengal (although the partition was reverted in 1911) saw the coming of age of Indian nationalism. India was together like never before and the country was bristling with nationalistic fervor. However, the idea of independence from the British was still not an option that nationalists were considering.
¤ Home Rule Movement Started
When Great Britain was deeply enmeshed in the World War I, India's national movement though intermittent continued to throw up surprises. One of them was the Home Rule Movement. In December 1915, Tilak, who was one of the first nationalist leaders with a following and deep understanding of the grassroots of India, voiced the thought of Home Rule (instead of `swadeshi’, that being a word the British were wary about). It was for the first time that someone had mentioned the word Home Rule as being the goal for the Indian National Movement. On April 28, 1916, the Home Rule League was set up with its headquarters in Poona (Pune). Tilak went on a whirlwind tour of the country, appealing to everybody to unite under the banner of Home Rule League. Anne Besant of the Theosophical Society fame also assisted him in this task.
Under face of this attack, the government fell back to that old reliable – stricter laws. Laws were formulated to prevent agitations, to prevent `undesirable aliens’ from entering India, propaganda came under government control, and so on.
The importance of the Home Rule movement was that for the first time the independence of India came to be clearly the goal of the Indian national movement. The public at large was first an audience and then terrorist nationalists who bombed parliaments and blew up railways, and they must have further scared the middle class away from the movement. and history will tell you no movement for independence was ever a success without the involvement of the bourgeoisie. So, while the idea of freedom was gaining ground, the populace at large was not really involved.
and then, as Jawaharlal Nehru would later say, Gandhi came.
¤ Gandhiji
Suddenly everything changed. The man dressed in a dhoti, kurta and pugri with a lathi in hand (initially) and mingled with elegantly dressed British-Indian moderates. He was not a rabble-rouser; he would have been loath to do a Demosthenes. Nor was he anyone's idea of a charismatic leader. Just a short, thin, shrivelled man, with what Sarojini Naidu called `Mickey Mouse ears’ and a twinkle in his eyes. He talked of peace. of loving his enemies, not of bombs or murders. of non-violence, ahimsa. That was his only weapon; and, as the British were to find out to their expense, boy did it work!
When Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi came back to India from South Africa at the age of 49, he had already built a tremendous reputation for himself as a political leader. Almost immediately upon docking in Bombay, he was offered to lead the national Movement.
Gandhi, however, begged out, opting to travel and know the country thoroughly first. The first causes he chose to associate with were minor local affairs and it would almost seem that the nationalist leaders of the time did not know what to think of this almost too-mild, too-moral and too-impractical maverick.
During 1917-18, hectic political moves were being made by a worried British government. One of the results of this was the Rowlatt Act proposed by Justice Rowlatt. Among other things this act gave the courts the right to try political cases without a jury and provincial governments, apart from the centre, the power of internment without trial. Gandhi, in his typical style, said that the Rowlatt Act raised issues of trust and self-respect, and hence should be met by a moral response in shape of a hartal, or a traditional Indian way of protest involving cessation of activities for a day.
¤ The Massacre At Jallianwallah Bagh
The flash-point came in Punjab. On April 12, 1919, General Dyer, who had taken over the troops in Punjab the day before, prohibited all meetings or gatherings. So of course a public meeting was announced to be held the very next day, April 13, in Jallianwallah Bagh (a park enclosed on all sides with only a single narrow entrance) at 4.30pm. We all know what happened that day.
It has been repeated in emotion-charged words in books and in poignant scenes in movies. That day 6000 to 10,000 people, including women and children, were shot dead in that park as an example of what happened to people who disobeyed the orders of the British Raj. In the court martial which followed later, General Dyer coldly observed that he had fired only 1600 rounds of ammunition on the crowd; that was because that was all he had. He added that he would fired more if he had so seen fit.
The brutality of the Jallianwallah Bagh tragedy shocked the country. It also woke up the moderates.
What was more important was that it brought Gandhi out in the open.
¤ The Beginning of Non Co-operation Movement
In 1920, under the leadership of Mahatma Gandhi, the Indian National Congress launched the first of his innovative movements of protest, the Non Co-operation Movement. It involved surrender of all titles, honorary offices and nominated posts in local bodies.
People stopped attending government functions and darbars. Parents were requested to withdraw their children from government schools and colleges. British courts and the army was boycotted. Indians were to stand for elections to any government body or legislature. Ahimsa or non-violence was to be observed strictly.
The hugeness of the idea of Non Co-operation amazed every political leader in India, who started realising that Gandhi was not so meek after all. The idea captured popular imagination and suddenly, in one sweep, the National Movement was taken to every man on the street.
People came out in their thousands to support Gandhi and his movement. The government machinery did not actually break down, but came under visible strain.
Unfortunately, in the time when the movement was showing signs of real success, an incident occurred in Chauri Chaura, in which a mob of 3000 people killed 25 policemen and one officer. Similar tragic events had happened earlier on November 17, 1921, in Bombay and on January 13, 1922, in Madras. Gandhi, who was the last of the ethical political leaders, immediately withdrew his movement. and got arrested in the bargain, on March 13, 1922. However, the Mahatma did get his way, the Rowlatt Act was repealed.
Gandhi was severely criticised almost everywhere for disassociating himself from the Non Co-operation Movement; for certainly the moment he went, so did the masses. This was not the first difference of opinion that was to happen in the Congress about Gandhi's actions. Many more such occasions were to crop up, though everyone invariably gave in to the Mahatma. Gandhi was already the invisible ruler of the country.
A committee was set up in 1927 to review the status of Indian affairs by the British government, under Sir John Simon. So far, so good. However, the committee did not include even a single Indian, a situation which convinced the Congress that action was called for.
This was time when young radicals like Jawaharlal Nehru and Subhash Chandra Bose were insisting on total independence being the goal for the Congress. The new Viceroy Lord Irwin had got the Labour government in London to agree to a declaration that dominion status was the goal of British policy and a round table conference was called to consider the next step. After coming out one of his famous thinking breaks, Gandhi was for the offer. But the mood in the country was totally contrary to this. So rather than let the radical element take over, Gandhi decided to control the situation by leading a non-violent movement himself.
¤ The Demand of Complete Independence - Purna Swaraj
At midnight, on December 31, 1929, Jawaharlal Nehru unfurled the Tricolor on the banks of the river Ravi in Punjab and the Congress called for complete Independence, purna swaraj. January 26, 1930, was declared as Independence Day. From February 14 to 16, 1930, the Congress Working Committee met at Gandhi's famous ashram in Sabarmati and vested Mahatma Gandhi with launching his Civil Disobedience movement "at a time and place of his choice."
On February 27, the plan of agitation was announced. The entire nation was in ferment. Everyone was waiting in eager suspense about what would the Mahatma do next; none more than the British government, though not so eagerly, one presumes.
On March 12, 1930, accompanied with 78 colleagues of the Sabarmati Ashram, Mahatma Gandhi embarked on a 60-mile march to the sea coast of Dandi. He intended to defy the Salt tax, paid indirectly by every peasant. The first instinct of the government was to let him walk as much as he wanted, and ignore him. However, the Gandhi magic worked. Soon protests, hartals, processions were taking place all over India. Gandhi was arrested on May 5, 1930, and his place was taken by Abbas Tyabji as the leader of the movement. When Tyabji was arrested, Sarojini Naidu, the famous nightingale of India, replaced him. All over India, the mood was ablaze, the atmosphere tense and the people were on the streets. Louis Fischer wrote about the Civil Disobedience: "The British beat the Indians with batons and rifle butts. The Indians neither cringed nor complained nor retreated. That made England powerless and India invincible."
¤ First Round Table Conference
When the first Round Table Conference was held in London from November 12, 1930 to January 19, 1931, it turned into a failure for not a single Congressman attended. The British now appealed to the Congress to work with them. Lord Irwin also declared that Mahatma Gandhi and the other members of the Congress Working Committee would be freed soon to consider the matter "freely and fearlessly."
The Mahatma was persuaded to meet Irwin and the result was the Irwin-Gandhi pact under which the Civil Disobedience Movement was withdrawn and a second Round Table Conference with Congress participation was agreed upon. This peace did not last long. Gandhi attended the Second Round Table conference in London in 1931 as the sole representative of the Congress. He demanded control foreign and defence affairs, and there was complete deadlock over the matter of minorities, thanks to Muhammad Ali Jinnah, His Highness the Aga Khan and Dr Bhim Rao Ambedkar. Gandhi returned to India on December 28, 1931 empty handed.
By May 1934, the Civil Disobedience Movement was completely withdrawn.
During the second World War the Congress decided that India should co-operate with Britain on the understanding that complete independence be granted to India after that. The British, however, stuck to the policy of `no change during war and whatever you want will be discussed after that’. This attitude did not exactly ease the minds of the Congress members as to the intentions of the government. Now also was visible a wide open split between Jinnah's Muslim League and the Congress' aims and demands. Early in 1940 Jinah declared Pakistan as the goal of the league.
After the fall of France in 1940, Gandhi declared, "We do not seek independence out of Britain's ruin." The British reply to this was an offer that an Indian constituent assembly as well as Dominion status would be discussed `after the war’. The offer was spurned. The result? A deadlock which was not to unlock till 1947.
Gandhi, with his usual skill for the innovative, now rallied the country and Congress behind him with his Quit India movement. The threat was the launch of a Civil Disobedience movement which could have coincided with the Japanese advances from the far-east towards India. "After all," he said, "this is open rebellion."
The movement was launched on August 8, 1942 in Bombay. Gandhi declared: "I want freedom immediately, this very night, before dawn, if it can be had. You may take it from me that I am not going to strike a bargain with the Viceroy for ministers and the like… Here is the mantra, a short one, that I give you… Do or die. We shall either free India or die in the attempt."
¤ Independence Was Just Ahead
From 1942 onwards it was quite clear that independence of India was only a matter of time now.
NEW DELHI, the new capital of India, was hardly seven years old then. The British did not live long in the beautiful New Delhi they created. Thus, again fulfilling the age-old prophecy about those who build Delhi don’t live in it for long.
In 1946, Lord Mountbatten arrived in Delhi amid a buzz of political activity. The British, following their World War II concerns, wanted to basically wash their hands off India. Also, the Indians wanted to get back what was rightfully theirs. However, there were too many emotional ties – the British and the Indians went too far back together for the British to just pack up and leave. They had a responsibility. Unfortunately Mountbatten, although a favorite with the Indians because of his youthful good looks, was the wrong man for the job. He was in such a hurry to get back to England that he seemed to just go along with the first proposal that found favor with both the Congress and the Muslim League without taking into account what the people really wanted.
¤ Partition of India
The rest is history. Partition, one of the worst mass movements of people in recent history after that of the Jews in the World War II, happened. Two republics were born from one nation on August 15, 1947 – Pakistan and India.
Gandhi, the father of the nation, did not join the celebration that followed. He was in Bihar working in riot torn areas, praying for peace. For him independence, in the shape that it came, meant failure. With this in mind, Gandhi withdrew from active politics.
Accusations by Hindu fundamentalists that he had sided with the Muslims in giving away Pakistan too easily dogged Gandhi since the day the state of Pakistan was declared. On January 30, 1948, a Hindu fundamentalist called Nathu Ram Godse shot and killed the man who was the Mahatma.
Revolt of 1857
¤ The Uprising In 1857
However Delhi did appear centrestage at least once in the road to the British rise to power: in the controversial Indian Uprising of 1857. Debate has continued and will always go on about whether 1857 was actually the first Indian War of Independence or simply a mutiny.
There is enough evidence to support the fact that the Uprising had been planned for months before the actual outbreak. What did the revolutionaries in, apart from the fact that they failed to spread the word beyond Central India and Delhi, was that the Uprising did not go according to plan. It broke out before the appointed date! If D-day had gone as per schedule, the uprising would have broken out in many areas simultaneously and would have been very difficult for the British to control. However as things turned out, trouble broke out sporadically in various places in May 1857 and there was little, if any, coordination happening. So, the British were able to curb it with relative ease.
¤ The Tales of 1857 Revolt
There are stories and stories about the British and Indian confrontation in Delhi in 1857. There are tales of valour and bravery from both sides; and also accounts of unimaginable horror and barbarity.
While books are full of vivid reports of the horror and humiliation that the British had to face and the courage they displayed, very little has been written about what innocent Indians were put through by vindictive British on the teach-the-natives-a-lesson path. What made the Indians rebel in the first place hasn’t been written about much either.
It is true that the old poet-king in Delhi, Bahadur Shah Zafar and his cohorts, Tatia Tope of Gwalior (Gwalior itself did not rebel, Tope was merely a general), the Rani of Jhansi and so on had very narrow and selfish aims to achieve – their petty kingdoms, money and power.
None of them would have rebelled if the British had not snapped their purse-strings, the ‘compensation’ they were paid by the British in return for a share in government. The common people - of Delhi, Lucknow, Gwalior and so on - however had nothing to gain. Except independence. A place to call their own. Their war was not for a small kingdom, they were fighting for freedom. Which is why, while admitting that 1857 was limited in its scope, one cannot just dismiss it as a mutiny. Far too many emotions and resentments were involved which the British had long ignored.
1857 convinced the British that they could no longer just sponge off India, getting rich at its expense without giving anything back. That was what led the Crown to formally relieve the East India Company of its charge and take over itself.
¤ Pre-Independence
It was not until 1931 however that New Delhi was inaugurated as the capital of India. A spanking new city, its new look, promised in 1911 by King George V and Queen Mary, was created and realized by the temperamental Sir Edward Lutyens, along a team of eminent architects including Sir Herbert Baker and Robert Tor Russell. However, the British did not live long in the beautiful New Delhi they had created, thus fulfilling the age-old prophecy that anyone who built a new city in Delhi would lose it.
¤ Arrival of Lord Mountbatten
In 1946, Lord Mountbatten arrived in Delhi amid a buzz of political activity. The British, following their World War II concerns, wanted to wash their hands of India. The Indians meanwhile, were hankering for what was rightfully theirs. But there were too many emotional ties, the British and the Indians went too far back together for the British to just pack up and leave. They had a responsibility.
Unfortunately Mountbatten, although a favorite with the Indians because of his youthful good looks, was the wrong man for the job. He was in such a hurry to get back to England that he just went along with the first proposal that found favor with both the Congress and the Muslim League without taking into account what the people wanted.
The rest is history. Partition, the worst mass movement of people in the 20th century, with the exception of the Jews who fled Germany in World War II, took its toll on both India and Pakistan. Two republics were born on August 15, 1947. The capital of India was, and remains, the much-destroyed and much-built Delhi.
Independence of India
¤ Sailing of San Gabriel To India
When the San Gabriel sailed around the Cape of Good Hope to finally dock at Calicut, a prosperous port and an independent principality on the Malabar Coast in May, 1498, half a century of the Portuguese tentative to find a sea route to India was finally crowned with success.
The man behind the quest was Vasco da Gama (1460-1524) – a devout Roman Catholic whose nightlong vigil in a Lisbon chapel before commending himself to the unsure waters had finally paid off. and if ‘Christians and spices’ were his twin pretext at the outset, da Gama’s successive visits to India, first in 1500 to set up a ‘factory’ or a trading base, then in 1502 to wreak havoc on the port and Arab trading vessels alike, proved that Portugal and its prime sailor had other things on their mind as well.
The Portuguese were probably here to stay, and da Gama was to earn himself the distinction of Governor of all Portuguese possessions in India in the twilight of his life.
While da Gamma paved the way for the Portuguese to India, Dom Alphonso D’Albuquerque (1495-1515) chalked out and consolidated Portugal’s trade routes to India during the sixteenth century.
¤ Portuguese Emerged As New Ruler
Albuquerque was an imperial rather than a commercial emissary of Portugal. Harnessing strategic ports mainly in the Persian Gulf, along the west coast of India and beyond, overrode the need to garner support of the local rulers. This drove him to capture Goa on the west coast of India in 1510, Melaka (Malacca) on the Malay peninsula in 1511, Hormuz at the opening of the Persian Gulf in 1515, Bassein in 1534, Daman and Diu in 1535 and Colombo in 1597. The series of offensives proved that the Portuguese were the new rulers of the roost.
Their mercantile and imperial strategies were paralleled by a drive to convert the masses to Roman Catholic Christianity. Temples disappeared from the Goan landscape to be replaced with churches, monasteries and seminaries. As the Portuguese Viceroy in India, Albuquerque encouraged mixed marriages with the intent of procuring fresh recruits, especially in the form of offsprings, to serve the Portuguese project in India and elsewhere.
However, with the rise of military, political and maritime mights like the Dutch and the English, History forced the Portuguese in India into the wings.
Unable to cast its net much further than Goa after being united to Spain, Portugal’s focus of interest shifted from India to more lucrative lands.
¤ The Arrival of Dutch
The Dutch sailed their ships eastward for the first time in 1595. However, their first stop was not India but Jakarta in Indonesia where they lost no time in establishing their monopoly over the spice trade. India was significant only insofar as it constituted part of the great Asian trade route that the Dutch had developed and that cut through Ceylon and Cape Town.
Even though in 1602, when the Dutch East India Company was chartered, the Dutch harboured no military ambitions about India, around 1605, a fleet of thirty-eight ships dispatched by the Dutch East India Company inflicted a crushing defeat on Portuguese ships off Johore and the Dutch wrested the fortress at Ambiona from Portuguese control. The unstoppable Dutch then went on to seize secret Portuguese maps and oceanic charts detailing the trade routes with India. These were soon to serve as guides to the eastern waters.
¤ Arrival of English
The English entered the East Indies almost as the same time as the Dutch. However, the English were quick to realise that the Dutch were unwilling to share their turf in the East Indies with them. The tenacity with which the Dutch refused to relent on the East Indies forced the British to turn to India. Spices in India abounded in the south but the trade monopoly of the local rulers and other Europeans had to be broken.
The British East India Company was established by the Royal Charter in 1600, and in course of time, the Protestant Dutch and English would embark upon the common project of eroding Catholic Spain and Portugal’s trade monopoly in the Indian Ocean.
It is interesting to note, however, that although the Dutch had their ‘factories’ in Cochin, Nagapatam and even up in Agra, they did not give the idea of military expansion in India much thought. The spice trade was rewarding and they were quite content with just that.
¤ French Also Making Forays Into India
The Dutch and the English were not the only nations to take an interest in India in those days.The seventeenth century also saw the French making forays into India. While the success stories of the Dutch and the British East India Companies were a motivating factor, the reasons for setting up the French East India Company were not mercantile.
The French set up their first trading post in 1666 at Surat. The Sultan of Golconda then allowed them to set up another trading post in Masulipatam on the Coromandel Coast in 1669. In 1670, the Sultan gave the French land in Pondicherry. In the next two decades, the French obtained trading concessions in Bengal and Chandernagore, and established a post at Mahe on the Malabar coast of southwest India.
But the French East India Company did not turn out to be as prosperous as the Dutch and the British East India Companies.
Meanwhile, the British had made some important moves.
¤ British Developed Strong Relations With Mughals
Sir Thomas Roe arrived at the Mughal Emperor Jahangir’s court as the envoy of King James I of England, and stayed in India from 1614-1618. While William Hawkins had already initiated successful diplomatic relations with the Mughal court, Roe consolidated them further, gaining in the process not only friends in the Mughal court but also the Emperor’s permission to establish a British East India Company trading post at Surat. Roe’s diplomacy with the Mughals paid off so well that by 1618, the East India Company became their unspoken naval aide.
Henceforth the commercial rise of the British in India was meteoric. By 1661, Bombay was given to Charles II of England as dowry when he married Catherine of Braganza. Bombay was then dutifully passed on to the British East India Company. By 1708, around the dawn of the Modern Indian Era, the British found themselves quite comfortably placed in India, at least commercially.
and Aurangzeb’s exit from Indian History in 1707 and its aftermath were to eventually throw up the new keepers of India’s destiny – the British.
¤ The Decline of Mughal Court
The decline of the Mughal empire after Aurangzeb’s death was shockingly swift. (See Medieval Indian History). Power and glory bowed out to disarray and disgrace The state treasury ran dry. It was clearly an oft repeated moment in History when devoid of will, a dynasty lingered on, waiting to be saved or damned.
¤ The Advent of Nadir Shah
A series of disastrous invasions against Delhi finally broke its spirit. The first of these was led by the famous Persian king, Nadir Shah in 1739. At the time, the court in Delhi was fending off the Maratha offensive.
One of the finest ministers of the Mughal court , Nizam-ul-Mulk met Nadir when the latter arrived near Delhi and talked him out of his initial idea of sacking Delhi by offering him Rs 50,00,000. The matter would have been settled had not one of Nizam's rival generals at court convinced Nadir Shah that the latter was being short-changed. Delhi’s legendary wealth could not be relinquished for so paltry a sum.
Soon Nadir Shah marched over to Delhi in time to have a khutba read in his name. Unfortunately, it was around the same time that a rumour about Nadir Shah’s death spread in Delhi. Not only was this news greeted with jubilation by the inhabitants of Delhi, some of them went so far as to actually attack a few Iranian soldiers. No one could have forseen the consequences.
On March 11, 1739 an order was issued by Nadir Shah. Delhi witnessed yet another blood bath. Chandni Chowk, the fruit market, the Dariba bazaar and the buildings around the Jama Masjid were burnt to cinders. Each and every inhabitant of the area was killed in retaliation. People living around the area still point at the Khooni Darwaza (Gateway of Slaughter) in the old city and talk of the massacre as though it had taken place only the previous day. The royal treasury was sacked and its contents seized. When Nadir Shah left Delhi after 57 days, he also took along with him the fabulous Peacock Throne of the Mughals and the last remnants of the Mughal pride.
Lead by Ahmad Shah Abdali, an ex-general in Nadir Shah’s army, the Afghans were the next raiders of Delhi. Abdali led as many as seven invasions into India between 1748-1767.
In January 1757, Abdali captured Delhi. What followed was a carnage of the Nadir Shah vintage. After pillaging Delhi, the Afghans overran most of Northern India. It is said that after the sack of Mathura, Brindaban and Gokul, for `seven days the waters of the Jamuna flowed a blood-red colour.’
An outbreak of cholera in Abdali’s army forced him to withdraw, though not before making the Delhi court cough up around 120,000,000 rupees. He also demanded, and got Kashmir, Lahore, Sirhind and Multan. This, unfortunately, was not the last time that Abdali was to invade India.
and a retiring Delhi court would leave it to the Marathas to counter Abdali’s next invasion. Unable to resist the immense riches of Delhi, Abdali stormed the city again. On January 13, 1761, he took on the Maratha confederation, and humbled the Marathas in the third and final battle of Panipat, rooting out the possiblity of Maratha dominion over North India, at least for the next decade.
Abdali returned in 1764, driven once again by his lust not so much for power as for gold. His sixth invasion had the Sikhs, who had by then carved out a kingdom for themselves under the famous Maharaja Ranjit Singh, up in arms. The determined Sikhs, who never allowed the Marathas to establish themselves up north, now put up a stiff resistance. When Abdali invaded India for the last time in 1767, he met his comeuppance at the hands of the Sikhs who then took Lahore and Central Punjab. However the areas extending from Peshawar and beyond remained with Abdali.
¤ The Slow Rise of British
Against this troubled backdrop, the British rise to power was slow, but remarkably steady. Slow because the British had an uphill task to accomplish; first there were the French to deal with. The commercial rivalry amongst the British and the French had its roots in the prevailing political situation in Europe.
As long as the French carried on business in a small way in India, the British left them to themselves. But between 1720 and 1740, the French East India Company's trade with India recorded almost a ten-fold growth to measure upto half the volume of that the British East India Company at the time. The stakes were too high for either to ignore – especially since the British East India Company generated more than ten percent of England's revenue.
¤ The Rise of Carnatic War
This was the time when the War of Austrian Succession (1740-48) had broken out in Europe, following Fredrick the Great of Prussia's seizure of Silesia in 1740. The French and British found themselves in opposing camps in this war. Later, during the Seven Years War (1756-63), both were at loggerheads with each other once again, supporting rival camps. These two European wars were to have an immediate bearing on India’s political destiny.
Between 1746-48, the French and English finally came to blows in the first Carnatic War (1746-48) in the Deccan. Two more of these wars sealed the fate of the French East India Company in India.
The first Carnatic War was perhaps a fallout of the Austrian War of Succession. The fight was over Madras and though the French had captured it, it was given back to the English as part of the Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle of 1748. In the meanwhile the British and French had got their fleets upto the Indian mainland – an important development as the balance of power within the mainland was fast slanting in favour of the Europeans. and Dupleix, the French governor of the time, decided to turn the tide in France’s favour.
A shrewd and resourceful character with great diplomatic skills and a fine understanding of local politics, Dupleix was nevertheless difficult to work with because of his nervous temperament and inadequate military knowledge.
The opportunity Dupleix was waiting for came his way in 1748 when the Nawab of Arcot (in present Tamil Nadu) died leaving behind the question of succession unresolved. Dupleix succeeded in having a Nizam of his choice, Chanda Sahib enthroned. The new Nizam was supported by the old Nawab's grandson, Muzzafar Jung, and backed by French troops under the able command of de Bussy. The idea was to close in on Madras by surrounding it with French territory.
Everything would have gone off as planned but for Robert Clive who arrived in Madras as a clerk and proved himself to be a brilliant strategist. He laid the seige of Arcot in 1751 with a mere 210 men, turning Dupleix’s dream into a nightmare. Chanda Sahib was killed and a British nominee was placed on the throne of Arcot. Recalled to France in 1754, Dupleix retired in ignominy.
Dupleix was succeeded by Godeheu, who sued for peace with the British. Both the French and the British agreed not to interfere in India’s internal matters and went back to their old positions. The French also agreed to give up everything they had taken so far. Godeheu was denounced for having ‘signed the ruin of the country and the dishonour of the nation’, but the damage was done. The British had emerged much stronger after the second Carnatic War.
The third and final phase of this Anglo-French war for supremacy was precipitated by the Seven Years War in the shape of the third Carnatic War (1756-63). However, despite very fine French generals like de Bussy and Lally, the British inflicted a crushing defeat on the French who ended up losing practically everything they had in India.
The dream of the ‘dominion de l'empire de la France’ in India was over. and thanks to their naval supremacy, greater resources and steadier support from Europe, the British had emerged as the clear winners.
¤ British Rose To Power In India
Thereafter, the British steadily rose to power in India, at least till the Uprising of 1857.
The Uprising was a culmination of a number of factors. People were growing increasingly resentful of Britain’s political and cultural motives in India. But the mandatory use of Enfield Rifles, and cartridges greased with animal tallow – pig or cow – that were to be readied by mouth by practising Hindus and Muslims in the Sepoy Army of Indian troops, precipitated the event.
There is enough evidence to support the fact that the Uprising had been planned for months before the actual outbreak. However, revolutionaries failed to spread the word about it beyond Central India and Delhi, and the Uprising did not quite unfold as planned. Had it gone according to schedule, the Uprising would have broken out in many areas simultaneously and been difficult for the British to contain. However, as things turned out, trouble erupted sporadically in various places in May 1857 and there was little, if any, coordination between the outbreaks. For the British, quelling such a rebellion was hardly intimidating.
¤ The Revolt of 1857
Stories about the British and Indian confrontation in Delhi in 1857 abound. Tales of valour and bravery about both sides alternate with accounts of unimaginable horror and destruction.
The poet-Mughal in Delhi, Bahadur Shah Zafar, Tatia Tope of Gwalior (Gwalior itself did not rebel, Tope was merely a general), the Rani of Jhansi too joined in the rebellion as they had their own interests to protect. None of them would actually have rebelled had the British not rethought the `compensation’ that these rulers were being paid in exchange for a share in the governance.
The people of Delhi, Lucknow, Gwalior and the rest of India, however, had nothing to gain, at least not personally. Their war was not for a private kingdom; they were fighting for freedom.
Scholars and historians who have revisited the event have tried to define the Uprising in terms that were at times limiting or expansive – a simple Mutiny, India’s first National War of Independence, a Princely plot, to name few. In any case, it would be difficult to package the event in a single neat definition.
Following the Uprising, the British Crown in Parliament formally took over the responsibility of ruling India from the British East India Company.
What was happening in the Indian society all this while was difficult to overlook. A cultural revolution had been taking place even before the Uprising of 1857. Sati was banned, the Arya Samaj was a new religious alternative, education for women was encouraged and a whole new breed of intellectuals – mostly from Bengal – were making their presence felt. This new breed of Indians was a power to reckon with.
After the Uprising, India was poised at the dawn of a new era of political awareness.
¤ Indian National Congress Came Into Being
In December 1885, despite the Governor General of India, Lord Dufferin’s reluctance to endorse the idea, Allan Octavian Hume formed the Indian National Union (which would soon be renamed Indian National Congress), alongwith seventy-two learned Indian delegates hailing from different parts of the country. The Indian National Congress’ first meeting took place in Bombay in 1885, and was presided over by W C Bonnerjee.
In its early phase, referred to as the phase of the Moderates (1885-1905), the Congress pledged loyalty to the British. The moderates were a class of elite erudite men who were into philosophy and intellectual discussions; the much more popular peoples’ leaders were to follow. One of the most prominent leaders, Dadabhai Naoroji, wrote extensively to highlight the drain of wealth from India to Britain.
The Congress was soon to enter a turbulent phase, and in 1907, during the session at Surat, there was an open split in the party. The moderates led by Gopal Krishna Gokhale and Pherozeshah Mehta and those that the British qualified as extremists headed by Bal Gangadhar Tilak, parted ways. The Congress would regain its vitality only years later (1919-1934) under the leadership of Mahatma Gandhi.
In 1905, Lord Curzon’s brainchild, the partition of Bengal was implemented. The decision evoked sharp reactions from all quarters of India. The day on which the partition came into effect was observed as a day of mourning and fasting throughout Bengal. Rabindranath Tagore, the famous Nobel-laureate and writer, passionately spoke out against it. This was the time when the Swadeshi movement was first launched; Indians participated in auto-da-fés of foreign goods and turned to indigenously manufactured articles. Lots of young leaders from Bengal took up the task of educating people. On August 15, 1906, a National Council of Education was set up under the educationist Aurobindo Ghose.
The government came down heavily on the agitators, disrupting meetings, insulting leaders and beating up peaceful protestors. In 1907, Lala Lajpat Rai and Sardar Ajit Singh were deported from the Punjab. In 1908, Bal Gangadhar Tilak was arrested and sentenced to six years of prison. Aurobindo Ghose was arrested, prosecuted and although acquitted, he chose to retire to Pondicherry.
The agitation against the partition of Bengal (although the partition was revoked in 1911) ushered in the age of Indian nationalism. It was a question of time before this nationalistic fervour settled down to the more concrete issue of how India was to cast aside the British yoke.
¤ Indian National Movement Continues
While Great Britain was entangled in World War I, India's national movement, despite being at a nascent stage, continued to throw up surprises. In December 1915, Bal Gangadhar Tilak, the first nationalist leader with a deep understanding of India’s grassroots, and a considerable following, voiced the idea of Home Rule (`swadeshi’, was a word the British were wary of). It was for the first time that someone had alluded to Home Rule being the goal of the Indian National Movement. On April 28, 1916, the Home Rule League was founded, with its headquarters in Poona (Pune). Tilak went on a whirlwind tour of the country, appealing to everybody to unite under the banner of Home Rule League. Annie Besant who subscribed to the cause herself assisted him in this task.
The implications of the Home Rule movement were clear to all now. The independence of India was the goal of the Indian national movement. But while the idea of independence was swiftly gaining ground, for the most part, the bougeoisie was still unsure about whether it needed to jump into the fray or hold itself at bay. Meanwhile the Crown rule decided to tighten the clamps. Laws were formulated to prevent agitations, undesirable elements were banned from entering India, propaganda came under government scrutiny – the British had reason to be nervous.
¤ Gandhiji
and then, as Jawaharlal Nehru would later say, Gandhi came.
He was not anyone's idea of a charismatic leader. Just a short, thin, shrivelled man, with what Sarojini Naidu called `Mickey Mouse ears’ and a twinkle in his eyes. He talked of ahimsa, or non-violence and ahimsa would finally disarm the British.
When Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi finally returned to India from South Africa at the age of 46, his arrival was preceded by his formidable reputation as a political leader. Moments after having docked at Bombay, he was asked to lead the National Movement.
Gandhi, however, declined, opting to get to know India thoroughly. The first causes he chose to associate with were minor local affairs, and the nationalist leaders of the time did not know what to make of this almost too-mild, too-moral and too-impractical maverick.
During 1917-18, with revolutionary conspiracies being on the rise within the country, the British grew progressively uneasy. To counter these, Justice S A T Rowlatt proposed the Rowlatt Acts. Among other things, this act empowered the government with special wartime controls that included the right to try political cases without a jury, and gave the provincial governments along with the centre, the power to imprison without trial. Gandhi, in his typical style, said that the repressive Rowlatt Acts raised issues of trust and self-respect, and hence needed be met with a moral response in the form of a hartal, or a protest that entailed striking work on April 8, 1919.
¤ The Massacre At Jallianwala Bagh
The flashpoint came in Punjab. On April 12, 1919, General R E H Dyer who had taken over the troops in Punjab the day before, prohibited all meetings and gatherings. So when a group of unarmed people congregated at the Jallianwala Bagh, a walled park with only a single narrow entrance, on April 13, 1919 to celebrate the Sikh festival of Baisakhi. What followed was to blight the pages of Indian History and its peoples’ minds for a very long time to come. A peaceful congregation had been transformed into an unmitigated blood bath.
Later, during the court martial, General Dyer coldly observed that he had fired only 1600 rounds of ammunition on the crowd as that was all he had. He added that he would have fired more had he so deemed fit.
The brutality of the Jallianwallah Bagh massacre shocked the country. It also shook the moderates out of their stupour and brought Gandhi out in the open.
¤ Congress Launched Non-Cooperation Movement
In 1920, under the leadership of Mahatma Gandhi, the Indian National Congress launched the first movement of protest – the Non-Cooperation Movement. It involved surrendering all titles, honorary offices and nominated posts in local bodies. Government functions and darbars were to be boycotted. Parents were requested to withdraw their children from government schools and colleges. Indians stayed way from the British courts and army, and were to stand for elections to government and legislative bodies. Ahimsa or non-violence was to be observed strictly.
The magnitude of the Non Cooperation Movement amazed every political leader in India. Gandhi’s approach was not so meek after all. The idea appealed immensely to popular imagination and suddenly, in a single sweep, the Non-Cooperation Movement had touched every man on the street. People came out in droves to support Gandhi and his movement.
The government machinery did not actually break down, but came under visible strain. Unfortunately, at a time when the movement was showing signs of success, in Chauri Chaura, a mob of 3000 people killed 25 policemen and one officer. Similar incidents had taken place earlier on November 17, 1921, in Bombay and on January 13, 1922, in Madras. On February 7, Gandhi suspended the movement. He was arrested on March 13, 1922. Suddenly, the future of swaraj, or self-rule within a year seemed uncertain.
Gandhi came under fire from several quarters for disassociating himself from the Non-Cooperation Movement. The man of the masses took the masses along when he made his exit. and this was not to be the only time when differences of opinion cropped up in the Congress about Gandhi's actions. and each time, in the end, people invariably gave in to the Mahatma. Gandhi had won over the heart of an entire nation.
In 1927 the British government set up a committee headed by Sir John Simon to review the state of affairs in India. However, the committee that came to be known as the Simon Commission did not include even a single Indian. The Congress took umbrage to the omission.
At this time, young radicals like Jawaharlal Nehru and Subhash Chandra Bose were insisting on making total independence the goal of the Congress. At midnight, on December 31, 1929, Jawaharlal Nehru unfurled the Tricolor on the banks of the river Ravi in Punjab and the Congress called for purna swaraj, or complete Independence. January 26, 1930, was declared as Independence Day. From February 14 to 16, 1930, the Congress Working Committee met at Gandhi's famous ashram in Sabarmati and requested him to launch the Civil Disobedience Movement ‘at a time and place of his choice.’
On February 27, the plan for the agitation was made public. The entire nation was in ferment. Everyone, including the British, was curious to see what the Mahatma would do next.
On March 12, 1930, accompanied by 78 colleagues of the Sabarmati Ashram, Mahatma Gandhi embarked on a 60-mile march to the sea coast of Dandi. He intended to defy the new salt taxes that the government had levied and that would directly impact each and every peasant. To begin with, the government thought it better to ignore the event. However, soon the entire country was abuzz with hartals, protests, agitations, processions. The rising tide of discontent had to be checked. Gandhi was arrested on May 5, 1930. Abbas Tyabji took the relay to lead the movement. When Tyabji was arrested, Sarojini Naidu, the nightingale of India, replaced him.
All over India, the mood was upbeat, the atmosphere tense and the people on the streets. Louis Fischer wrote about the Civil Disobedience: "The British beat the Indians with batons and rifle butts. The Indians neither cringed nor complained nor retreated. That made England powerless and India invincible."
¤ First Round Table Conference
When the first Round Table Conference was held in London from November 12, 1930 to January 19, 1931, not a single member of the Congress attended it. The British now appealed to the Congress to work with them. Lord Irwin also declared that Mahatma Gandhi and the other members of the Congress Working Committee would soon be freed to consider the matter ‘freely and fearlessly.’
The Mahatma and Lord Irwin finally met. The result was the Gandhi-Irwin pact. Amongst other things, the Civil Disobedience Movement was withdrawn under the pact, and a second Round Table Conference with Congress participation was agreed upon. This peace did not last long. Gandhi attended the Second Round Table conference in London in 1931 as the sole representative of the Congress. He demanded control of foreign affairs and defence, and the matter of minorities, with little help from Muhammad Ali Jinnah, His Highness the Aga Khan and Dr Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar, ended in a complete deadlock. Gandhi returned to India on December 28, 1931 empty-handed.
By May 1934, the Civil Disobedience Movement had been completely withdrawn.
During World War II, the Congress decided that India should co-operate with Britain on the understanding that complete independence would be granted to India after that. The British, however were unwilling to discuss the issue of independence during wartime. This had the members of the Congress wondering about the intentions of the government. Meanwhile, the divide between Jinnah's Muslim League and the Congress' aims and demands had grown sharper. In early 1940, Jinnah declared Pakistan as the goal of the League.
After the fall of France in 1940, Gandhi declared, "We do not seek independence out of Britain's ruin." The British reply to this was an offer to discuss an Indian constituent assembly, as well as Dominion status `after the war’. The offer was spurned. This resulted in yet status would be another deadlock not to be resolved till 1947.
¤ The Launching of Quit India movement
Gandhi with his usual innovative skill now had the country and Congress rallying behind him. The moment had arrived to launch the Quit India movement. The unnerving part was that the launch of another Civil Disobedience Movement could coincide with the Japanese advances from the far-east towards India. "After all," Gandhi said, "this is open rebellion." The country was willing to court risks for the freedom that was to be won.
The movement was launched on August 8, 1942 in Bombay. Gandhi declared: "I want freedom immediately, this very night, before dawn, if it can be had. You may take it from me that I am not going to strike a bargain with the Viceroy for ministers and the like… Here is the mantra, a short one, that I give you… Do or die. We shall either free India or die in the attempt."
From 1942 onwards it was quite clear that the countdown to an independent India had begun.
¤ Arrival of Lord Mountbatten
In 1946, Lord Mountbatten arrived in Delhi amid a buzz of political activity. After World War II, the British seemed keen to wash their hands off India. For their part, the Indians were not loathe to such an idea.
However, there were too many emotional ties – the British and the Indians went too far back together for the British to just pack up and leave. Mountbatten was entrusted with the responsibility of transferring power to the Indians, safeguarding British interests and prestige for future interaction with independent India and Pakistan. and in the bargain, if Partition was inevitable, the nations would have to live with the realisation and the consequences
¤ Partition of India
It was one of the worst movements of people in recent history after that of the Jews in the World War II. A nation was dismembered. On August 15, 1947 – India kept her ‘tryst with destiny’. Midnight bore her the precious gift of freedom. Following an announcement on August 17, 1947 Pakistan became the other independent state.
Gandhi, the father of the nation, did not join in the celebrations that followed. He was elsewhere working in riot torn areas, praying for peace. For him independence was tinged with sadness and disappointment. He was ready to withdraw from active politics.
Accusations of siding with the Muslims and giving Pakistan away too easily, dogged Gandhi since the day the state of Pakistan was declared. On January 30, 1948, a Hindu fundamentalist called Nathu Ram Godse shot the Mahatma. India lost the man who, alongwith so many others, had taught it to dream of independence, and to throw a bridge between that dream and reality. and on August 15, 1947, Indians had walked across that bridge.
No comments:
Post a Comment