Did Britain Unite India?

Did the British create a united India? Shashi Tharoor takes a stab at that in An Era of Darkness. Even at first glance, that “claim” runs into trouble – wasn’t British rule openly a policy of divide and rule? Both in India and other colonies?

 

If they were so into uniting India, why did they allow for multiple rulers across so many “princely states” (never to be called kingdoms because the only monarch was, of course, in Britain)? Why was there an elaborate hierarchy amongst them, if not to foster rivalry and enmity?

 

The codification of the caste system started with Warren Hastings who hired eleven pandits to help frame laws for the country based on some kind of continuation of the shastras. Even if the intent was sincere (continuity, sensitivity to local practices), the mode of defining the laws (via the eleven pandits) led to major flaws. First, the pandits made (genuine) mistakes in their interpretation of parts of the shastras. Second, they took advantage of their role and position to deliberately frame rules (even cook up references) that favoured their community. (Unsurprisingly, the Brahmins worked themselves into positions of favour with the British from that point onwards).

 

The British, not knowing Sanskrit or the land, had no way to know what the pandits had done. But they made it binding, the law.

“Under colonialism, caste was made out to be far more pervasive, far more totalizing, and far more uniform than it had ever been before.”

The British were never bothered by the fact that the “system need not have worked as described in theory” (even the parts that did come from the shastras). Ignorance aside, the British found castes suited them for multiple reasons. One, it helped divide the Hindus into castes. Two, their laws became easier to justify as driven by local religious practices.

 

The British census began to include caste, thus reinforcing it even further, by making it part of official records. No more was caste just a societal construct. Earlier, a shudra could have left his village, gone to a far off place where nobody knew him and his caste wouldn’t be associated with him. No more, with the census making that detail an attribute of the person.

 

Not just caste, the census classified people by religion and tribe as well. The reason was obvious. It gave the British more levers to create and drive differences amongst the population. The British also brought their European idea that nations were defined by linguistic unity. By that token, India being home to numerous languages, was not really a single entity in their eyes. For their operational convenience, they may have treated as one unit, but with their European blinkered view, the unit was not really a single country.

 

When the Indian National Congress was formed, it was open to people from all religions, a truly secular organization. This doesn’t gel well with the British. So they actively tried to create an alternate Muslim-only political entity, the Muslim League in 1906.

 

The partition of Bengal in 1905 was along religious lines. Like most of India, the Nawab of Dacca (Dhaka) was against such a split. But the British bribed him with low interest loans and promises to give preferential treatment to the Muslim majority side of Bengal. The seeds for the eventual creation of East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) had been sown.

 

When Indians were allowed to be elected as representatives in government (limited though their power was), the British reserved seats for Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs (Later they added seats for the “Depressed Classes”, to create yet another wedge and prevent nationwide unity). Anything to create and perpetuate differences among the subjects. With resources from the government meagre for local purposes (the loot was to be sent to London, after all), the British actively encouraged religion and group based “contests” for those resources.

 

The British actively supported the Muslim League as a way to prevent political unity across the country. The final outcome of that is well known – the partition of India. So much for the imperialistic claims of uniting India.

 

By the end of World War II, a victorious but badly battered Britian could only do one half of its notorious “divide and rule” policy. They could continue to divide, but they were no longer capable of rule. Mountbatten even drew up a ‘Plan Balkan’ that would have transferred power to the provinces rather than a central government. The plan was reviewed and revised in London. Had it gone through, it would have been even worse than what Jinnah was proposing and demanding (two nations). Balkanization would have probably set off wars amongst the provinces and kingdoms the moment the British left.

 

As a contrast, just compare British rule with that of the group that ruled a huge chunk of modern day India + Pakistan + Bangladesh. Yes, the Mughals. Have you ever heard of any such policies by the Mughals? As they say, the facts speak for themselves.