CAUSES OF SUCCESS OF EAST INDIA COMPANY AGAINST FRENCH

Causes for the failure of the French (after three Carnatic Wars)

The French position which at one time dazzled the Indian world by its political successes was destined to end in humiliation and failure. There were various causes responsible for the defeat of the French and the victory of the English.

French Continental Preoccupations – The continental ambitions of France in the 18^th century considerably strained her resources. The French monarchs of the time were fighting for ‘natural frontiers’ for their county which meant acquisition of new territories towards the low countries, extension of the frontier to the Rhine and towards Italy. Such expansionist schemes involved that country deeper and deeper into the political muddle of Europe, taxed her energies and kept her constantly at war with the states of Europe. France cared more for a few hundred square miles of territory on her frontier to bigger stakes in North America of India. France attempted simultaneously the difficult task of continental expansion and colonial acquisitions. This divided her resources and made her an unequal to the task in facing her adversaries. It was the misfortune of France that she gained almost nothing on the continent and lost her colonial possessions also. England, on the other hand did not covet an inch of European territory. A part of Europe, England felt herself apart from it. England’s interests in Europe were mainly confined to the maintenance of a balance of power in that continent. England’s ambition was mainly colonial and in this single-minded objective she came off with flying colors. She won the struggle both in India and North America and worsted off France in both these regions.

Different systems of government in England and France – French historians have rightly attributed the failure of France in the colonial struggle to the inferior system of government prevalent in France as compared to the English system of government. The French government was despotic and depended on the personality of the monarch. Even under Louis XIV, the ‘Grand Monarque’, the system was showing serious cracks. The numerous wars that Louis XIV waged sapped the vitality of the state, ruined her financial resources and made French power look like an inflated balloon. The deluge followed close on his death. His weak and sensual successor, Louis XV frittered away the resources of France upon his numerous mistresses and other favorites like dancers and hair dressers. England, on the other hand, was ruled by an enlightened oligarchy. Under the rule of the Whig Party, England took great strides towards a constitutional set up, reducing the British realm into ‘a sort of a crowded republic’. The system showed considerable vitality and grew from strength to strength. Alfred Lyall emphasizes the rottenness of the French system of government when he writes: “India was not lost by the French because Dupleix was recalled, or because La Bourbonnais and D’Ache both left the coast at critical moments or because Lally was headstrong and intractable. Still less was the loss due to any national inaptitude for distant and perilous enterprises in which the French have displayed high qualities… it was through the short-sighted, ill-managed, European policy of Louis XV, misguided by his mistresses and by incompetent ministers, that France lost her Indian settlement in the Seven Years War”.

Differences in the organization of the two companies – The French Company was a department of the state. The Company had been launched with a share capital of 5 ½ million livres out of which the monarch subscribed 3 ½ million livres. Its directors were nominated by the King from the shareholders and they carried on the decisions of two high commissioners appointed by the government. Since the state guaranteed dividend to the shareholders, the latter took very little interest in promoting the prosperity of the company. So great was the lack of public interest that from 1725-1765 the shareholders never met and the company was managed by a department of the state. Under these circumstances the financial position of the French Company progressively deteriorated. At one stage the resources of the company dwindled to such a low ebb that it had to sell its trading rights to a group of merchants form St. Malo for an annual payment. From 1721 to 1740 the company traded or borrowed capital. Constantly propped up by subsidies from the royal treasury, the company was kept going by monopoly of tobacco and gambling in lotteries. Such a company was ill equipped to support the ambitions of Dupleix or finance his expensive wars. The English Company, on the other hand was an independent commercial corporation. While this company could not remain altogether unaffected by the political upheavals in England, the interference of the governments into its day-to-day affairs was very little. Whoever controlled the administration in England, the King or Parliament, there was great interest in the ruling circles for the wellbeing of the Company. Compared to the French company, the English company was financially sounder, its trade was far more extensive and business methods better. the directors of the English company always emphasized the importance of trade. With them trade came first and politics later on. The English Company earned enough to finance its wars. It has been estimated that during 1736-1756, the total sales of the English company was higher than the French. Financially the English company was so rich that at one time it was in danger of being regarded as a milch cow by the government of England.

When Dupleix inaugurated the policy of making political gains to compensate for the declining profits of the French company he took the first step towards its decline.

Role of the Navy – The events of the Carnatic Wars amply demonstrate how the fortunes of the two companies waxed and waned with their strength on the seas. During 1746, French successes on land followed her naval superiority along the Coromandel Coast. True, the English naval power did not assert its superiority during the few years following 1748, more because England and France were officially at peace. Dupleix’s astounding successes were won during 1748-51 when the English navy was temporarily out of action. The naval superiority of England during the Seven Years War placed Count de Lally at a grievous disadvantage and he could not hope to repeat the exploits of Dupleix. The retirement of French fleet under D’Ache from the Indian waters left the field clear for the English and their final victory was no longer in doubt. During the Austrian War of Succession French maritime strength was so greatly used that according to Voltaire she was left with no warships during the Seven Years War. Pitt the Elder made the maximum use of the superiority of England on the high seas. Superior naval force enabled the English East India Company to keep open her communications with Europe, cover her operations on land in the Carnatic by supplying reinforcements from Bombay and Calcutta and cut off and isolate French force in the Carnatic from the rest of the world. Superior maritime strength proved to be England’s most powerful weapon in the struggle for colonial supremacy. Even if other factors were equally proportioned navy would have the casting vote.

Impact of English successes in Bengal – The English conquest of Bengal in 1757 was undoubtedly of great significance. Besides enhancing the political prestige of the English company, it placed at its disposal the vast resources in wealth and manpower of Bengal. The financial resources of the English Company considerably improved. At a time when Count de Lally was ill at ease as to how to make payments to his troops, Bengal sent not only troops but supplies to the Carnatic. The Deccan was too poor to finance the political ambition of Dupleix or military schemes of Count de Lally. True, Bussy had obtained the cession of the Circars from the Nizam, but there was no evidence of any remission of funds to Southern India except the lakh and a half rupees sent by Bussy to Lally in 1758.

Decidedly the power of superior finance was on the side of the English. V. A. Smith emphatically declared, ‘Neither Bussy nor Dupleix singly, nor both combined, had a chance of success against the government which controlled the sea routes and the resources of the Gangetic Valley. It is futile to lay stress upon the personal frailties of Dupleix, Lally or lesser men in order to explain the French failure. Neither Alexander the Great nor Napoleon could have won the Empire of India by starting from Pondicherry as a base and contending with the power which held Bengal and command of the sea’. ‘Dupleix’ writes Marriott, ‘made a cardinal blunder in looking for the key of India in Madras; Clive sought and found it in Bengal’.

Respective leadership compared – The superior political leadership and military generalship of the English in India stand in striking contrast to that of the French. Perhaps Dupleix and Bussy were in no way inferior to Clive, Lawrence and Saunders. The comparison ends there. Dupleix and Bussy could do everything but enthuse the French with their own spirit; they had to depend on incompetent subordinates. Count de Lally who came to India at a critical moment was headstrong and of a violent temper. He looked upon the Company’s servants of Pondicherry as a net of dishonest rogues whom he hoped to set right by threats and punishment. He so greatly alienated his compatriots that they openly rejoiced when the English defeated him. The English on the other hand, were lucky in procuring the services of capable commanders and very many servants far superior to any of the subordinates of Dupleix and Bussy.

Responsibility of Dupleix – Dupleix not withstanding his political brilliance cannot escape the responsibility of damaging the position of the French in India because his complete absorption in political intrigues blinded him to some very important aspects of the contest. He showed comparative indifference towards the trading and financial problems of the French company. Consequently the French trading activity even otherwise not very sound began to decline rapidly. Moreover, at times he was in discreetly reckless about finances and thus ruined the prospects of his well conceived political plans. It is rather intriguing that a man of Dupleix’s imagination in believing that the policy he had adopted in the Deccan was politically expedient. The English would not easily accept Dupleix’s new position as governor of all the Mughal territories south of the river Krishna. Further he failed to grasp the fact that the Anglo French conflict in India was merely a projection of the clash of political and imperial ambitions of the two countries in Europe and the New World. In addition, Dupleix suffered from such an overwhelming self-confidence that he did not appraise his superior authorities in Paris even about some of the serious military and naval setbacks suffered by the French in India. Thus, if he did not get timely reinforcements from France the fault is greatly his.

It must not be forgotten that India was one of the many theatres of the world wide struggle between England and France for colonial supremacy and that the English, on a general summation, proved to be superior contenders.

PINDARIS

The etymology of the word Pindari is variously explained. The most popular explanation is that the word pindari is of Marathi origin meaning ‘consumer of pinda’ a fermented drink. In the 18^th and 19^th centuries the word was used to describe the hordes of cruel marauders whose main occupation was loot and plunder.

The origin of the Pindaris is lost in obscurity. They were first heard of in 1689 during the Mughal invasion of Maharashtra. During the time of Bajirao I they were referred to as irregular horsemen attached to the Maratha army, serving without pay and receiving in lieu there of license to plunder. It is worth mentioning here that they never helped the British. They were mostly active in the areas of Rajputana and the Central Provinces and subsisted on plunder. Their leaders belonged to both the Hindu as well as the Muslim communiites. Chief amongst them were Wasil Muhammad, Chitu and Karim Khan. They had thousands of followers.

After the Battle of Panipat in 1761, the Pindari leaders settled chiefly in Malwa and served as auziliaries of Maratha chiefs like the Sindhia and the Holkar, and the Nizam, they came to be designated as Sindhia Shahi Pindaris, Holkar Shahi Pindaris and Nizam Shahi Pindaris. Malhar Rao Holkar gave one of the Pindari chiefs a golden flag; in 1794 the sindhia granted them lands in Narbada Valley which they extended soon by ‘conquests from the Grassias or original independent landlords in their neighborhood.

Malcolm had in view their connection with the Marathas when he wrote, ‘condemned from origin to be the very scavengers of the Marathas, their habits and character took from the first a shape suited to the work they had to perform’.

As the power of the Marathas declined the Pindaris became a body by themselves frequently engaged in devastating the territory of the very chiefs whom they professed to follow.

The weakness of the Mughal central authority, the corruption of weak and expiring states, the repeated plundering raids of the Marathas created conditions in India which the Pindaris role ‘like masses of putrefaction in animal matter’. The chaotic political conditions in many parts of India deprived large number of people of their peaceful occupations. The life of plunder offered an easier means of livelihood than honest labor. The Pindari ranks swelled during the Governor Generalship of Wellesley when a large body of professional soldiers were disbanded by the subsidiary allies of the East India Company. The Pindaris spread misery all around and many hardy peasants were impelled to join their ranks. The Pindaris thus formed ‘not a particular force but a system fed and nourished by the very miseries they created’.

The Pindaris did not come from any particular area or believe in any particular religion. They were a heterogeneous element drawn from the ranks of disbanded soldiers, fugitives from justice, idle, profligate and unscrupulous men both from Hinduism and Islam. The prospect of rich plunder was the only tie of cohesion among the members of a Pindari party. Their mode of warfare was a peculiar one. They avoided pitched battles with regular armies. When on march, they carried no baggage of any description and supported themselves and their horses on the grain and provision which they plundered. Their favorite (arms) weapons were long bamboo spears, some used fire arms also. Their chief merit was their speed. ‘The celerity of their marches was not more remarkable than their secrecy. It was scarcely possible to gain information for their movements till they had completed’. Like swarms of locusts they destroyed and left waste whatever province they visited. British writers like Malcolm, Princep, Duff, Tod and Thorton have given detailed accounts of the plundering raids of the Pindaris.

In the early nineteenth century the chief Pindari leaders were Chitu, Wasil Muhammad and Karim Khan. The Pindaris gradually extended the area of their operations organizing raids in the Company’s territories.

In 1812, the Pindaris plundered the districts of Mirzapur and Shahabad; in 1815 they raided the Nizams dominion and in 1816 plundered the Northern Circars (Sarkars).

Lord Hastings decided to take stern action against the Pindaris. The Court of Directors also authorized action. Hastings improved the company’s diplomatic position by concluding agreements with the Maratha chiefs, the Rajput princes and the ruler of Bhopal getting promises of help against these robber bands.

British writers like V. A. Smith, P. E. Roberts and S. M. Edwards have popularized the myth that the Pindari marauders, the Afghan free-booters and the Maratha chiefs were in league with one another and Daulat Rao Sindhia was the ‘nominal sovereign’ of the Pindaris. The problem, therefore, before the Governor General was not only to encircle the Pinadaris, but also to check the attempts of the Maratha chiefs to breakthrough to their assistance; and that the prescience of the Governor-General was fully justified, for ‘the hunt of the Pindaris became merged in the third Maratha War’.

Recent researches have proved that the population in the Maratha territories even was not safe from the depredations of the Pindaris and that Daulat Rao Sindhia himself employed his troops to suppress the Pindaris. In the summer of 1815 the Sindhia entered into a definite agreement with the Pindaris whereby the latter agreed to give up the policy of plunder and to live on the lands alotted to them by the Sindhia. Edmonstone, vice president of the Governor General’s Council, assered that the Sindhia was sincere in his desire to suppress the Pindaris and to dissociate himself from their activities. It seems Hastings ws keen on war with the Sindhia. He noted in his private journal on 23 Dec 1816: ‘It is far better if the Sindhia be resolved to risk his existence for the support of the Pindaris’. In fact, Hastings did not really desire the Sindhia’s cooperation in his campaign against the Pindaris. On the other hand, he desired war against the Sindhia and found in the campaign against the Pindaris the right opportunity to provoke him to it.

Lord Hastings wanted to suppress the Pindaris and defeat the Marathas in one sweep. For this he gathered a large army of 1.13.000 men and 300 guns and attacked the Pindaris from four sides. He himself took command of the force from the north while Sir Thomas Hislop commanded the force from the south.

By the end of 1817 the Pindaris were drive across the Chambal and by Jan 1818 their organized bands were destroyed.

In 1818, the Pindaris were completely suppressed, and all their bands disintegrated. Karim Khan was given a small estate in the Gorakhpur district of the United Provinces (Modern UP), Wasil Muhammad took refuge in the Sindhia’s camp, but the latter handed him over to the British. Wasil committed suicide in captivity. Chitu escaped to the forest where a tiger devoured him. Thus by 1824, the menace of the Pindaris came to an end.

In 1824 Malcolm wrote, ‘the Pindaris are effectually destroyed, that their name is almost forgotten’.

Duff wrote, ‘The Pindaris thus dispersed without leaders and without a home or a rendezvous, were afterwards little heard of though flying parties were seen in the Deccan until the termination of the war with the Peshwa’.

Ref: B. L. Grover and S. Grover

IMPACT OF BRITISH RULE ON ECONOMY AND COMMERCE IN INDIA

Positive effects of British rule on Indian economy – In course of time British rule brought with it modern industries in India. These proved helpful in industrializing India and put her on the industrial map of the world.

Under the British rule, means of communication and transport were improved. A cheap postal system was introduced. During the regime of Lord Dalhousie, the telegraph system was established. Though the railways were primarily meant to encourage the British industrialist and to facilitate the movement of British soldiers, they proved to be greatly beneficial to the people of India. The railways did go a long way in stepping up the pace of industrialization in India.

Harmful effects of British rule on Indian economy – The British rule also produced a series of adverse effects on the Indian economy. The total impact was to weaken all the economic potential for growth and brought untold poverty and misery to the Indian masses.

Industrial revolution resulted in Economic exploitation of Indian masses – The Industrial Revolution (1750-1850) started in England when the East India Company got the Diwani rights from the Mughal Emperor Shah Alam. In England, factory system developed and started producing finished commodities on a massive scale. These factories needed large quantities of raw materials which they could obtain from India easily because of their political power. On the other hand, the Indian market was readily available to British manufacturers for dumping their goods. This is how the Industrial Revolution in England resulted in economic exploitation of India.

Growing poverty of agriculturalists – Before the rise of British power the peasants in India were by no means contented and happy. However, they were not very miserable. The British rule increased the poverty and suffering of the farmers who constituted the larger proportion of the Indian population. When they were ruled by the Indian rulers, the Indians received and felt the personal touch. This they totally lost since the establishment of the British rule.

Flooding of Indian economy with British goods – When England followed the policy of free trade, Indian markets were flooded with English goods. Millions of small Indian producers were destroyed as their industries were ruined. In 1840, a number of Indians brought to the notice of the British parliament that while British cotton and silk goods imported to India paid only 3 ½ % and woolen goods 2%, Indian cotton goods imported to Britain had to pay 10% silk goods 20% and woolen goods 30%. The ruinous effects of the British commercial policy on India’s textile manufacture were highlighted by the governor generals report for 1834-35.

Increasing export of raw materials – With the establishment of British rule and introduction of a commercial policy favorable towards the British manufacturers, there was distinct trend towards increase in export of raw materials. The export of manufactured goods from India steadily declined and the export of raw materials increased rapidly.

Economic balance in the Indian economy destroyed – British rule resulted in destruction of the very basis of the Indian economy. It destroyed the balance and harmony between agriculture and domestic industry. Indian economy was a blend of agriculture and industry. It now became a dominantly agricultural economy. When the East India Company’s monopoly in trade ended, the Indian economy was openly exposed to exploitation by British commercial and trading interest.

Destruction of village self-sufficiency – British rule ended the age long self-sufficient village communities in India. The British Commercial Policy was disastrous to village communities. After the establishment of the British rule Indian villages started buying from outside tea, sugar, matches, umbrellas, cloth, kerosene, oil, mirrors, bangles, sewing machines, drugs, aluminum ware and several other commodities. This marked the destruction of the age old self sufficiency and self-reliance of village communities. The introduction of money by the British rulers also adversely affected the Indian village economies.

The decline of Indian handicrafts and its consequences – The decline of Indian handicrafts brought about by the discriminating policies of the British rulers, had the following consequences:

-       It led to an increase in the tremendous pressure of population on land.

-       The demand for land increased. This led to a rise in the rentals and prices of lands.

-       The rise in demand of land meant more fragmentation and subdivision of land.

-       Small land holdings were uneconomical. They did not provide to the cultivators even their subsistence needs and made them steeped in debt.

-       The farmers had to lose tehri lands ultimately. They became landless laborers / migrated to urban areas whereby increasing the number of the unemployed.

-       India which was a seller of rare artistic wares and much sought-after specialties was converted into a handy source of food stuffs and raw materials for materially advanced countries of the world.

Railways – an instrument of exploitation – Railways were introduced for movement of raw materials and proved an instrument of exploitation of India and her people by destroying Indian industries and trade. The Government of India guaranteed a very high rate of profit to the British investing companies, who provided capital for building railways in India. Consequently, railways proved to be an effective instrument of exploitation of India, by the British rulers. The freight structure was fixed in such a way that it helped the export of raw materials and the import of manufactures from England.

RIPON THE GOOD

 Why was Ripon called ‘Ripon the good’?

Florence Nightingale called Ripon ‘the Savior of India’ and his rule the beginning of a golden age in India.

Arnold White, on the other hand, thought that Ripon had ‘opened the door to the loss of India’.

Ripon was very popular with the Indians who long remembered him as ‘Ripon the Good and Virtuous’. In his presidential address at the Indian National Congress session at Lahore in 1909, Pandit Madan Mohan Malviya said, ‘Ripon was the greatest and most beloved viceroy whom India has known. He was loved and respected by educate Indians as I believe no Englishman who has ever been connected with India, except the Father of the Indian National Congress, Mr. Allen Octavian Hume and Sir William Wedderburn, has been loved and respected. Ripon was loved because he inaugurated that noble scheme of local self-government… because he made the most courageous attempt to act up to the spirit of distinctions, and to treat his Indian fellow subjects as standing on the footing of equality with their European fellow subjects… because he was a type of the noblest of Englishmen, who have an innate love of justice and who wish to see the blessing of liberty which they themselves enjoy extended to all their fellowmen’. One of the last acts of Ripon in 1909 was to vote for the Minto-Morley Reforms in the House of Lords. He died in 1909.

Unfortunately for India and Ripon the best measure of Ripon – Local self-government, substitution of merit for patronage and jobbery in filling posts in the higher branches of subordinate services, the Ilbert Bill – were defeated by the Indian bureaucracy. Very little was done in the sphere of local self-government or as Blunt puts it: ‘Poor little acts were passed allowing native communities to mend their own roads, provided the Commissioner does not think them incapable of doing so’. Perhaps the outcome of Ripon’s efforts was little. Ripon is remembered not that he had been able to do much, but as Surendranath Banerjee puts it, for ‘the purity of his intentions, the loftiness of his ideals, the righteousness of his policy and his hatred of racial disqualifications’. Ripon’s doings though unsuccessful raised hopes and aspirations which marked the beginning of political life in India. 

ADMINISTRATION OF RANJIT SINGH

The only system of government known to the Indian subcontinent at that time was despotism. Ranjit Singh had neither the necessary intellectual training for the inclination to make bold innovations in the system of government. The Maharaja was the embodiment of all civil and political authority in the state. Ranjit Singh however was a benevolent despot and looked to the welfare of the people. He considered himself as a servant of the Khalsa or the Sikh Commonwealth and acted in the name of the Khalsa. He even designated his government ‘Sarkar-i-Khalsaji’ and struck coins in the name of Guru Nanak and Guru Govind Singh.

Although the Maharaja was the pivot of the administration yet there was a Council of Ministers to help him in the task of administration. He divided the kingdom into provinces, each under a Nazim. A province was further sub divided into districts, each under the charge of a Kardar. At the village level the Panchayats functioned effectively.

Land revenue and justice – The main source of income of the state was land revenue which was collected with great severity. The state demand was fixed between 33% and 40% depending on the fertility and richness of the soil. Sir Lepel Griffin is correct in his judgment when he says that the Maharaja ‘squeezed out the unhappy peasant every rupee that he could be made to disgorge’ but took care not ‘to kill the goose that lay the golden egg’. The Maharaja was anxious to safeguard the interests of the peasantry and issued instructions to the marching armies not to destroy standing crops or damage them in anyway. To the sons of the peasantry, the Sikh army provided ample opportunities for employment.

The administration of justice was rough and ready. There was no hierarchy of courts as we find today. The administration of justice was more of a local than a national concern. The local officers decided cases according to local custom. The Adalat-i-ala was set up at Lahore which probably heard appeals from the district and provincial courts. Excessive fines were imposed on the criminals, of course depending on the means of the offenders. Even the most heinous crime could be foreign in return for money payment. Justice was thus looked upon as a source of income to the state.

Military administration – Ranjit Singh gave maximum care to the maintenance of an efficient army. If he had built a kingdom out of atoms with the help of armed strength, a strong army was necessary to maintain its frontiers. Besides, faced with enemies on all sides, an efficient army was a necessity. Ranjit Singh’s genius was best displayed in the organization of an excellent fighting army.

Ranjit Singh realized the essential weakness of Indian armies. Irregular levies poorly equipped and without proper training could hardly meet the challenges of the times. The Maharaja decided to build an army on the pattern of the army of the Company and recruited French officers to drill and discipline the troopers. Due emphasis was laid on the organization of the artillery department. Workshops were set up at Lahore and Amritsar for the casting of heavy guns and the manufacture of shot and power. Ranjit Singh adopted the system of ‘Mahadari’ or monthly payment of salaries to soldiers and officers and gave care to the equipment and mobilization aspects of the army.

A model army or Fauj-i-Khas was raised in 1822 by General Ventura and Allard. The special brigade had its own emblem and used French words of command in drill. The normal strength of this Model Army consisted of 4 battalions of infantry, 3 regiments of cavalry besides the artillery wing. Ilahi Baksh headed the artillery department of Fauj-i-Khas.

A special feature of Ranjit Singh’s army was the employment of Europeans in the service of the state. At one time there were 39 foreign officers drawn from different nationalities of the world, namely, Frenchmen, Germans, Americans, Greeks, Spaniards, Russians, Scotch, Englishmen and Anglo Indians. The Maharaja gave these European officers all types of inducements to settle in Punjab. Outstanding among these European officers were Ventura, Allard, Court, Gardner, Avitable. General Ventura headed the infantry department of Fauj-i-Khas, Allard was in charge of cavalry, while Court and Gardner reorganized the artillery department. These European officers rose to high positions in the civil administration for e.g., General Ventura was for sometime Governor of Duajat and Avitable became governor of Peshawar in 1837.

It has been estimated that I 1835 the strength of Ranjit Singh’s army stood at 75,000 which included about 35,000 regularly trained, disciplined and equipped troops. Ranjit Singh’s army proved an effective fighting force which got the better of the Afghans, the Gorkhas and the Dogras and even baffled the British in the two sikh wars.

Estimate of Ranjit Singh

Ranjit Singh stands out as fascinating personality I Indian history. Though ugly in physical appearance (Baron Hugel described him as the most ugly and unprepossessing man he saw throughout the Punjab), Ranjit Singh had an impressive personality. Fakir Aziz-ud-din, the Foreign Minister of Ranjit Singh, on an inquiry from an English officer as to which eye of the Maharaja was blind, replied: ‘The splendour of his face is such that I have never been able to look close enough to discover’.

Ranjit Singh was loved by the people of Punjab, Hindus and Muslims alike. If Ranjit Singh looked upon the Sikhs as his colleagues and co-religionists, he respected learned men of other religions also. Once the Maharaja wiped off the dust from the feet of a Muslim mendicant with his long grey beard.

Lepel Griffin calls Ranjit Singh ‘the beau ideal of a soldier – strong, spare, active, courageous and enduring’. Brave like a lion, Ranjit Singh led his armies and often fought in the forefront like a common soldier. He was thoroughly conversant with the various arts of war. He always planned his campaigns well in advance. While leading his campaigns against the tribesmen of the North West frontier region, he always engaged the tribesmen in the plains and took care not to follow them in their hills. Victor Jacquement, a French visitor to the court of Ranjit Singh, compares Ranjit Singh with Napoleon Bonaparte. True, Ranjit Singh used Machiavellian methods, the policy of ‘force and fraud’ to gain his ends, but he was never cruel and blood thirsty. Rather, he treated the vanquished with kindness and consideration.

According to Baron Von Hugel: ‘The sole aim of Ranjit Singh is the preservation and extension of his unlimited power and though his ambitious mind considered all means perfectly allowable to this end he has never wantonly imbued his hands in blood. Never perhaps was so large an empire founded by one man with so little criminality’.

As a ruler Ranjit Singh showed deep solicitude for the welfare of the people. He took adequate care to safeguard the interests of the common man against official oppression. It is said that a box was affixed outside his palace in which his subjects could lodge their complaints. The key of this box was personally kept by the Maharaja. He also paid personal visits to various parts of the country to acquaint himself with the actual state of affairs. Men of all communicates enjoyed the benefits of his mild and merciful administration. Faqir Aziz-ud-din, a Muslim, was his foreign Minister and was greatly trusted by the Maharaja. Jamadar Khushal Singh, the Dogra brothers, Teja Singh occupied very high positions in the Lahore Darbar. Dhian Singh Dogra was the Prime Minister and enjoyed the title of ‘Raja’. Above all, Ranjit Singh gave to the people of Punjab the blessings of peace, the like of which they had not seen in the past hundred years.

It is difficult to regard Ranjit Singh as a constructive statesman. The kingdom he had so assiduously built up disintegrated within a decade of his death, and the Maharaja himself cannot escape the responsibility for that. He had so greatly concentrated all administration in his hands that his disappearance from the scene caused not a ‘vacancy’ but a ‘void’ and the entire structure began to crumble. Besides, Ranjit Singh failed to subordinate the army to the civil authority. So long as he lived, his personal influence kept the army under control, but after his death, the army got out of control, but after his death, the army got out of control, dabbled in politics and reduced the civil government to a mere non-entity. Again, unlike Shivaji, Ranjit Singh did not breathe into the hearts of the people any sentiment that could keep them together after his death. Perhaps Shivaji’s successors were as incapable as Ranjit Singh’s successors, but the History of Maharashtra after the death of Shivaji is quite different from the history of Punjab after the Maharaja’s death. Nowhere is Ranjit Singh’s short sightedness more apparent than in his dealings with the English. Realizing full well that the English were throwing a cordon round his kingdom and fully cognizant of British expansionist designs he bided his time and avoided a conflict. On several occasions, he thought of going to war with the British, but his courage always failed him. The Maharaja left the inevitable task of fighting with the English to his weak and incompetent successors.

Notwithstanding his short-sighted policy Ranjit Singh occupies a high place in Indian history. The memory of this hero is still cherished by the people of Punjab. Summing up the achievements of Ranjit Singh Cunningham writes: ‘Ranjit Singh found the Punjab a warring confederacy, a prey to the factions of its chiefs, pressed by the Afghans and the Marathas, and ready to submit to English supremacy. He consolidated the numerous petty states into a kingdom, he wrestled from Kabul the fairest of its provinces and he gave the potent English no cause of interference’.  He rolled back the tide of invasion from the northwest and extended his sway up to the Northwestern Khyber Pass. Above all, he left behind a tradition of strength, and it is here that history enthuses posterity.

SIGNIFICANCE OF THE WAVELL PLAN

 The Wavell Plan – 1945

Lord Wavell who had succeeded Lord Linlithgow as Governor General in Oct 1943, now made an attempt to resolve the deadlock in India. In March 1945, he went to England for consultations. The result of his consultations was soon reveled. On June 14, he broadcast to the people of India the proposals of the British government to resolve the deadlock in India. He proposed the reconstruction of the Governor General’s Executive Council pending the preparation of a new constitution. With the exception of the Governor General and the Commander in chief (who would retain his position as war member) all other members of the executive council would be nominated from amongst leaders of Indian political life. This Council would have a balanced representation of the main communities, including equal proportions of Muslims and caste Hindus. It would work, if formed, under the existing constitution. Though the Governor General’s veto would not be abolished, it would not be used unnecessarily. The portfolio of External Affairs (other than those of tribal, and frontier matters which had to be dealt with as a part of the defense of India) was to be transferred from the Governor General to an Indian member of the Council. A conference of representatives chosen by the Viceroy was to be convened with a view to obtaining from the leaders of the various parties a joint list, or, failing it, separate lists of worthy people to constitute the new executive council. It was expected also that provincial minister in section 93 provinces would resume office and that there would be coalitions.

The members of the Congress Working Committee were let out of jail, and high hopes prevailed on all sides as invitations for the proposed Simla Conference went out to the leaders including Gandhiji. Meeting on June 25, 1945, the conference was adjourned after three days of discussion. On July 11, Mr. Jinnah had a short interview with the viceroy, during which he seems to have made it clear to the latter that the League wishing to be regarded as the sole representative of the Indian Muslims, was firmly opposed to the inclusion of any non-leaguer Muslims in the Viceroy’s list. But the Viceroy could not agree to this point of view. Three days later, Lord Wavell wound up the conference by declaring a failure of the talks.

The responsibility for the failure lies partly on Lord Wavell himself and partly on Mr. Jinnah. At a Press Conference, Mr. Jinnah stated: ‘On a final examination and analysis of the Wavell Plan, we found that it was a snare… this arrangement by which… we would have signed our death warrant. Next, in the proposed Executive we would be reduced to a minority of one third. All the other minorities such as Scheduled Castes, Sikhs, and Christians have the same goal as the Congress. On the top of this came the last straw… that even about the five members of the Muslim bloc which were allotted to communal will… the Muslim League was not entitled to nominate all the Muslim representatives. But we finally broke as Lord Wavell insisted upon his having one non-leaguer, a nominee of Malik Khizr Hyat Khan representing the Punjab Muslims’.

The Congress President (Maulana Azad) put the responsibility for the breakdown squarely on the shoulders of Mr. Jinnah. Lord Wavell, however, cannot escape the responsibility either. Lord Wavell’s procedure could have been easily iproved upon. He should have taken the leaders into confidence as regards the composition of his own list of members of the executive council. Possibly the Congress leaders might have been persuaded to accept that list either as a whole, or with minor modifications mutually agreed upon. Then, he should not have allowed the league practically to veto the whole plan and thus alone to block the path of progress. (Gandhiji, on whom the Cripps Proposal had fallen flat, felt that the Wavell Plan was sincere in spirit and contained the seeds of independence). It must be noted in this connection that the viceroy had assured the Congress President that ‘no party to the conference could be allowed to obstruct settlement out of willfulness’, but it seems that as in the parallel case of Cripps’, Wavell’s hands were stayed at the last moment. One tangible result of the failure of the Simla Conference was to strengthen the position of Mr. Jinnah and the Muslim League which was clearly manifested in the elections of 1945-46.

FOUNDATION COURSE II NOTES

 FOUNDATION COURSE II NOTES

Cick on the topic you would like to study / learn more about

Globalization and Indian society

Understanding the concepts of liberalization, privatization and globalization

Growth of information technology and communication and its impact manifested in everyday life - world wide web, GIS 

Impact of globalization on industry

Changes in employment and increasing migration

Changes in agrarian sector due to globalization

Rise in corporate farming and increase in farmers’ suicide

 

Human rights

Concept of human rights

Origin and evolution of the concept

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Human Rights constituents with special reference toFundamental Rights stated in the Constitution

 

Ecology

Importance of Environment Studies in the currentdevelopmental context

Understanding concepts of Environment

Ecology and their interconnectedness

Environment as natural capital and connection to quality ofhuman life

Environmental degradation – causes and impact on human life

Sustainable development – concept and components; povertyand environment

 

Understanding stress and conflict

Causes of stress and conflict in individuals and society

Agents of socialization and the role played by them indeveloping the individual

Significance of values, ethics and prejudices in developing the individual

Stereotyping and prejudice as significant factors incausing conflicts in society

Aggression and violence as the public express of conflict

 

Managing stress and conflict in contemporary society

Types of conflicts and use of coping mechanisms for managing individual stress

Maslow’s theory of self actualization

Different methods of responding to conflicts in society

Conflict resolution and efforts towards building peace and harmonyin society

 

While all the above topics can be expressed in your own words and have been discussed in class the links will help as guidelines for your answer. However, you may express your answers in your own words and giving / explaining your point of view. All the Best!!!