Category: WimLearn

By Ellie Redpath, Year 12.

The Indian Mutiny of 1857-8 resulted in a change to British policy towards India from an idealistic view, with the hopes that India would one day have become civilised enough under British rule to self-govern, to one of resigned moral duty coupled with a heightened awareness of the need for cementing the security of the British Raj. However, it did not result in the complete eradication of the previous policies employed under Company rule. When policy is defined as the changes made by the British government with regards to the military system and administrative government of India, and the changes to economic strategy, it becomes apparent that the policies were altered in order to avoid provoking the revival of violence by imposing Western ideology on the indigenous people. Normality for the Indian people remained largely the same as before the Mutiny; these policies were introduced solely as insurance that the events of the Mutiny would never be repeated.

The differences to the administrative government of India implemented after the Mutiny can ostensibly be seen as drastic, yet in reality resulted in little change other than to consolidate the restriction of the power of the indigenous people. An Indian Civil Service was created and the Governor General renamed the Viceroy, creating an illusion of the upheaval of the East India Company’s goverance. Yet despite the change in title, the new Viceroy of India was in fact the same man who had been Governor General, Charles Canning, and largely took on the same role as before 1857. The only tangible alteration was that he worked for the Government rather than the Company. Moreover, the Indian Civil Service was mainly comprised of white British men, and whilst indigenous people were not prohibited from joining, the entrance tests were based in London, so it was made near impossible; this had not even changed several decades later in 1905, when a mere 5% were men from Bengal. The creation of the Civil Service therefore only served to strengthen the administrative control of the British over the Indians by limiting how much influence Indians had over their own government. Another ostensible change introduced by the British government was the return of authority to the indigenous rulers of the princely states, a reversal of Dalhousie’s Doctrine of Lapse. While this appeared to be an extreme shift from Britain’s policy pre-Mutiny, the Princes overwhelmingly complied with British legislation and the restoration of their power made little difference to everyday life; the British government gave back their former entitlements solely because it appeared to be respecting tradition. A considerable amount of bitterness had developed in recently annexed states such as Oudh, so this difference in policy was expected to help pacify the indigenous people to prevent future uprisings. Ultimately, the British changes to the administrative rule of India were not as severe for the majority as they could seem at first glance, and were made principally to cement British rule and influence in the subcontinent.

Britain’s modifications to the structure of the Indian military were slightly more radical because it was sepoys in the East India Company’s army who had begun the Mutiny, so to avoid a repeated occurance and confirm that Britain held power over the army, it was necessary for Britain to change its military organisation in a more extreme fashion than it had changed administrative or economic policies. In order to prevent the recurrance of a similar incident, the religions and castes of the regiments were mixed to cut off a sense of unity against the British. This was intended to avert a situation like that of the Brahmin caste before the Mutiny – members of the elite Brahmin were forbidden to travel across the sea, yet this custom was often overlooked or ignored by British generals, leaving them to harbour resentment against the British. In addition to this, eighty four percent of regiments in Bengal (where much of the resistance had originated) were replaced, in order to diffuse any remaining tension in the area between the sepoys and their white officers. The number of British officers supervising a sepoy regiment was increased, and weapons were left under British control when not being used directly in battle to ensure that any violence that broke out amongst sepoys would not immediately endanger the British generals. However, whilst more changes were enacted in regards to the Indian military than in Britain’s administrative or economic policy, they were almost all made with the objective of inhibiting the escalation of future conflicts between sepoys and their officers into full-scale revolutions. The statement could be made that because sepoys were treated with greater respect after the Mutiny, Britain’s aim was not to assert control over the Indian troops or remain distant from them, but rather to foster amiable relations between officers and their soldiers; yet this was another strategy used by Britain to create an illusion of interpersonal respect to avoid further provocation of the indigenous peoples. Hence the military strategies of the British towards India only changed significantly because they were the most relevant in preventing the reoccurance of a mutiny.

The changes to British economic policy towards India were not a complete reversal of policy under the East India Company, yet again the changes that were made were directed towards attempting to curb the economic progress and industrial independence of the indigenous people to secure British control over India. The British built over 3000 miles of railway after 1857, a vast distance compared to the mere 288 miles built under Company rule. This development, whilst not being entirely new –railway lines, despite being short distances, had already existed before the Mutiny – simultaneously benefitted British trade as it allowed them to transport their goods further distances, increasing their wealth over that of the Indian economy, and allowed British troops to reach and crush any uprisings in remote areas much quicker than they would have been able to otherwise. While one could argue that developing and promoting industry in remote areas was an equally important reason for the construction of railways, and thus that their purpose was not to consolidate the British Raj, Britain’s economic policies actually intended to hinder India’s industrial growth. The recently introduced policy of free trade made it far easier for Britain to bombard India with inexpensive British-manufactured goods, which India would often have provided the raw materials for. For example, India produced raw cotton for export to Britain, yet its textiles industry was crushed by imports of cheaper British cloth. India’s economic development was hence restrained as it remained reliant on exports of raw materials to Britian, but had no protected market in which to sell its own manufactured goods, so its own industry could not flourish when faced with British competition; Britain was therefore kept economically superior to India, securing its power over the country, whilst India was kept dependent on British trade for its economy to survive, strengthening its ties to Britain. Therefore, Britain’s economic policy somewhat changed after the Mutiny due to the addition of railways to hasten the transportation of troops, and the import of British manufactured goods to India to limit its industry, however because railways had first been developed by the East India Company, the adjustments were only made for the purpose of security over the region and were not as extreme that one could state that they were changed completely.

To conclude, the Indian Mutiny resulted in Britain altering its policy on India from that of forced Westernisation with the ultimate aim of India achieving self-government, to one primarily focused on retaining British control and security in the subcontinent. However, outside of this shift in emphasis, little was changed, for life itself was not made radically different for the indigenous people; instead, the differences were precautionary, to avert the recurrance of brutality and ensure Britain remained the dominant power in India.