Causes of British Success in India

Expansion and Consolidation of British Power in India

• The history of British imperialism can be divided into two distinct periods. The first phase, known as the "first empire," encompassed Britain's expansion across the Atlantic to America and the West Indies. The second phase, referred to as the "second empire," emerged after the Peace of Paris in 1783 and involved Britain's focus shifting towards Asia and Africa.
• British imperial history originated with the colonization of Ireland in the sixteenth century. The English saw themselves as the modern successors of the Romans, taking on the mission of civilizing what they considered to be culturally inferior peoples around the world. In this endeavor, intellectuals in Britain and Europe during the post-Enlightenment era positioned themselves as the epitome of civilization compared to the peoples of the Orient and other regions.

Was the British conquest unintentional or deliberate?

• While the nature of Britain's imperial ideology underwent changes over time due to various spatial and situational factors, its core principles remained constant.
• Historians have engaged in a long-standing debate regarding whether the British conquest of India was accidental or intentional. One viewpoint, led by John Seeley, suggests that the British acquisition of India was a result of blind and unintentional actions, almost accidental in nature. According to this perspective, the British initially arrived in India for trade purposes and had no initial intention of acquiring territories or engaging in costly wars for expansion. They argue that the British were reluctantly drawn into the political conflicts created by the Indians themselves and felt compelled to acquire territories.
• On the other hand, another group argues that the British arrived in India with a clear intention of establishing a large and powerful empire. They believe that the British had a deliberate plan, gradually executed over the years, to expand their influence and gain control over Indian territories. This viewpoint dismisses the notion of the peaceful intentions and political neutrality of the early English East India Company as mere propaganda.
• However, both perspectives seem to present extreme viewpoints. It is likely that in the beginning, Company officials acquired territories primarily to protect and promote their trade interests, taking advantage of the fragmented political landscape in India. They realized the strategic benefits of manipulating local rulers and gradually interfered in local politics, leading to territorial acquisitions. However, as time progressed, British politicians in Britain and their appointed administrators in India actively pursued a desire to acquire territories and establish an empire.
• The immense profits generated from trade in India, coupled with personal ambitions, greed, and geopolitical developments in Europe, played a significant role in increasing British political influence in India. They sometimes waged wars to safeguard their commercial interests and, at other times, to protect their Indian allies from potential rivals. During Lord Wellesley's tenure, the British employed an aggressive application of the subsidiary alliance system to expand their dominion in response to the imperialistic designs of France and Russia. From 1798 to 1818, the British motives were consciously imperialistic. Lord Hastings further pursued Wellesley's policy and treated India as a conquered rather than an acquired territory. Subsequently, the British seemed to follow a deliberate plan to conquer the entirety of India and even neighbouring states.

When did the British period in India begin?

• The British period in India is often debated among historians, with several proposed starting points. Some consider the beginning of the Anglo-French struggle for supremacy in India in 1740, which coincided with the War of Austrian Succession in Europe. Others point to the year 1757 when the British defeated the Nawab of Bengal at the Battle of Plassey. Alternatively, the year 1761, marked by the Third Battle of Panipat and the defeat of the Marathas by Ahmad Shah Abdali, is also seen as a potential starting point. However, these chronological landmarks are somewhat arbitrary, as the political transformation that occurred during this period took around eighty years to fully unfold.
• It is important to note that interpreting this phase of Indian history solely through our present knowledge would be a mistake, as it was a complex period with multiple actors and dynamics. While thinking of 1761, for example, we may associate the British with their victory over the Nawab of Bengal and the French, but we would also need to consider the Marathas and the prospects of Haidar Ali. The circumstances under which the British succeeded are not entirely clear, and the challenges they encountered were not insurmountable. This paradox generates considerable interest in understanding the causes of the British Empire's success in India.

The Roots of British Success in India

• Over the course of nearly a century, the British employed various diplomatic, military, and administrative tactics to expand and consolidate their power in India. They employed both warfare and administrative policies to exert control over different kingdoms and ultimately establish their rule across the entire subcontinent. The British were willing to employ unscrupulous tactics to exploit situations or regional rulers in order to further their interests. The causes behind their success can be attributed to a combination of factors and forces.

Superior Arms, Military and Strategy

• The English possessed superior firearms, such as muskets and cannons, which had advantages over the Indian arms in terms of firing speed and range. Recognizing this, several Indian rulers began importing European weapons and hiring European officers to train their troops. However, despite these efforts, Indian military officers and ranks were unable to match the expertise and capabilities of their English counterparts. Lacking originality, the military officers and armies of Indian rulers became mere imitators.

Better Military Discipline and Regular Salary

• The English East India Company established a regular system of paying salaries and implemented strict discipline among its officers and troops. This ensured their loyalty and commitment to the company's objectives. In contrast, many Indian rulers faced financial constraints and struggled to provide regular salaries to their military personnel. The Marathas, for example, sometimes redirected their military campaigns to collect revenue in order to pay their troops. Additionally, Indian rulers often relied on personal retinues or groups of mercenaries who lacked discipline and could become rebellious or even switch sides when faced with challenging circumstances.

Civil Discipline and Fair Selection System

• The officers and troops of the English East India Company were selected based on their reliability and skills, rather than on hereditary, caste, or clan affiliations. They were subjected to strict discipline and were well aware of the objectives of their campaigns. In contrast, Indian administrators and military officers were often appointed based on their caste and personal connections, disregarding merit and ability. As a result, their competence was questionable, and they frequently displayed tendencies of rebellion and disloyalty in order to further their own interests.

Brilliant Leadership and Support of Second-Line Leaders

• Leaders such as Clive, Warren Hastings, Elphinstone, Munro, and the Marquess of Dalhousie demonstrated exceptional qualities of leadership on the English side. Furthermore, the English had the advantage of a long list of secondary leaders like Sir Eyre Coote, Lord Lake, and Arthur Wellesley (later Duke of Wellington), who fought not just for individual leaders but for the cause and glory of their country.
• On the Indian side, there were also brilliant leaders like Haidar Ali, Tipu Sultan, Chin Kulich Khan, Madhu Rao Sindhia, and Yashwant Rao Holkar. However, they often lacked a well-trained team of secondary personnel. Additionally, Indian leaders frequently found themselves in conflicts with one another, as much as they did with the British. The spirit of fighting for a united cause was not a driving force for them. As a result, they sometimes supported the British against neighbouring rulers, lacking a sense of unified consciousness as 'India'.

Strong Financial Backup

• The English East India Company had a strong financial backup that allowed it to pay substantial dividends to its shareholders and finance its military operations in India. England, in general, was experiencing significant profits from its global trade, providing a vast amount of resources in terms of money, materials, and manpower that were readily available to the British when needed. This advantage was largely due to their superior sea power, allowing them to dominate international trade routes.

Nationalist Pride

• In addition, the British population had a sense of nationalist pride, driven by their economic prosperity and a belief in material advancement. They took pride in their national glory, which further contributed to their success. On the other hand, Indian society was characterized by divisions and lacked a sense of unified political nationalism. The Indians were perceived as weak and divided among themselves, lacking the same materialistic vision as the British. These factors played a role in the success of the English Company in India.