QUES) Discuss the evolution of key imperial

ideologies and their representation of indigenous

identities, history and traditions of the colonized
Indian population.

Different empires had opted for different policies

for a smooth sailing governance. This, overtime
leads to the formation of the ideology of that
particular state. These ideologies hardly ever
remain static, they take time to develop as the
ideas of the people undergoes through a series of
changes.
India saw the onset of british rule during the late
18th and early 19th century. Right off the bat, the
britishers were faced by the question of how they
would extend their authority over this ‘far flung
dependency which was densely populated with
people from all walks of life following a wide
variety of beliefs. Hence the british devised ideas
of how the could “organize” the society, they tried
to determine how the Indian society was
fundamentally different than their own. By the
late eighteenth century, the British Empire was
seen as a landed empire based on the
conservative values of “military autocracy,
hierarchy and racial insolence.” In India, however,
the concept of the “white man’s burden” got
extended to India after the Battle of Plassey where
“Britain must secure the prosperity of the Indian
people before seeking any gain itself.
Just like the british had tried to “civilize” the irish
in the 16th century they also attempted to civilize
the Indian masses as well. As Sir Thomas
Smith argued, God had given the English
responsibility to 'inhabite and reform' this
'barbarous' nation. It was their task, he said, to
educate the Irish 'in vertuous labour and in
justice, and to teach them our English laws and
civilitie and leave robbyng and stealing and
killing one of another'. The british considered
themselves as new romans charged with civilizing
the backward people. Under the shadow of ideals
of enlightenment the british described themselves
as “modern” and “civilized”. Therefore in order to
describe themselves as enlightened beings they
had to term the other as “savage” or “vicious”.
They left no stone unturned in order to justify the
subjugation of the irish and tried to give to give
explanations of this conquest, satisfactory to their
conscience. They gave the rationale that the irish
were backward and barbaric despite the fact that
they were professing Christianity. The reason was
that they were wandering pastoralists as opposed
to the settled agriculturists of England. Thus the
English convinced themselves that their rule was
beneficial for the Irish. In india, the british
considered Indians to be naturally as deceitful,
lazy, feminine,irrational, superstitious. these
orientalist images had persisted for too long.
The establishment of the orientalist tradition was
marked by the establishment of institutions like
the Asiatic society of Bengal under the presidency
of its founding members like sir William jones and
warren hastings.
One of the most elaborate and extensive
ideologies that were used by the britishers was
the concept of oriental despotism that they had
used to comprehend india. The term despotism
since aristotle’s time has been described as
absolute legitimate royal power of a master over
a slave. Even though the concept has been deeply
buried in the past, it regained its relevance in the
18th century under the Europeans.
The term had enduring implications for the
emerging raj in india as the term was often
associated with the fact that the Asian countries
had no laws or property, therefore, they also had
no rights. Alexander dow, in his book “the history
of hindostan” tried to justify the british rule by
implicitly justifying the british rule over india by
saying that “ when a people have long been
subject to arbitrary power, their return to liberty is
arduous and almost impossible. Slavery, by the
strength of custom is blended with human nature;
and that unidentified something, called public
virtue exists no more.
The tropical climate of the Indian subcontinent
had majorly strengthened the british ideologies,
helping them gain confidence in their assumption
that india was fit for the execution of their
despotic ideology. The ‘enervating character’ of
india’s climate was accompanied by the subjection
of the country for nearly 6 centuries by the
muslim rule.
Another aid to their justification of oriental
despotism was the fact that ancient legal texts
inevitably undercut the notion that the Indian
land was meant to be a subject of it. This can be
identified through the “code of gento laws”,
commissioned by hastings in 1773.
A need was felt to study Indian law and then
assimilate them into the subject society for better
administration. For this purpose Fort William
College was established in 1800 to train civil
servants in Indian languages and tradition.
However the british frustration against the Indians
did not subdue with their growth of knowledge,
instead, they became even more convinced of
their upright and human intentions, they sought
to make Indians predisposed to curroption,
extortion and mendacity.
Scholars like Eric Stokes show how there were two
distinct trends that were emerging in the
administration of the East India Company. On the
one hand, Lord Cornwallis introduced the
Permanent Settlementin Bengal with the hope
that the rule of law and private property rights
would liberate Indians from the shackles of
custom and tradition and lead them to
modernization. While on the other hand, Thomas
Munro and his disciples in western and northern
India such as Montstuart, Elphinstone, John
Malcolm and Charles Metcalfe thought that
Cornwallis system was averse to Indian traditions,
not that they rejected the rule of law or private
property but rather would have them fit to the
Indian context. In this light, Munro introduced the
Rayyotwari Settlement with the intention of
preserving Indian communities, an idea which he
borrowed from Tipu Sultan’s “military fiscalism”.
Both the systems, therefore, were based on the
same fundamental principles of centralized
sovereignty, sanctity of private property,
protected by British law. Respect and paternalism
remained the two important components of the
early British rule in India. The Cornwallis regime
was widely criticized for it being distant and
conservative.
The liberal set of view for the Indian society was
produced by james mill in his work “history of
british india”. He believed that india could be
freed from the shackles of stagnation only if there
was a code of laws that would release individual
energy by protecting the products of its efforts. He
urged for “light taxes and good laws” to be
introduced. He put forth the idea for rights over
personal property and the protection of individual
as well. the main idea proposed by the liberals
was based on grounds of humanity, to turn
Indians into Englishmen or as macaulay described
in 1835, “ to create not just a class of indians
educated in english language, who might assist
the british in ruling india, but one who is english in
taste, morals and opinions as well”.
However the liberal ideology was inescapably
fraught with troubling implications.it did not have
either religious or climatic reasons to justify it.
Hence the liberal ideology as a whole meant the
seeds with already existed within the british
society were sown into the Indian soil as well,
which included private property, rule of law, and
the liberty of individuals.

The last decades of the 18th century saw the rise

of evangelicalism, which also coincided with
industrial revoltion. It was considered as a moral
agency that disciplined rampant individualismm
and provided 'respectability' with its stress on
personal experience and individual reading of
the gospel. The ‘notes’ of the Evangelical mind
were a consuming earnestness and conviction,
born of a transfiguring religious experience. It
carried with itself a notion of being “born again”
and experience conversion. And by the terms it
used to describe itself, ‘vital religion’, ‘practical
Christianity’, it meant an experience actually felt
physically and mentally in the anguish and terror
of sin and the ecstatic joy of rebirth. The
evangelicals believed that god had given them an
awful responsibility and duty to evangelize
millions of “heathen” Indians. The Indians were
considered as subjects who had feeble knowledge
of god, worshippers of false gods and graven
images. Scholars like Wilberforce had defined
Indian gods as ‘absolute monsters of lust,
injustice, wickedness and cruelty.
Charles grant, took it upon himself to carry
forward the work of evangelizing india. According
to him, Indian society was a sunken one, he spent
a considerable amount of time in studying the
Indian texts and the accounts of the foreign
travellers which compelled him to derive a
conclusion that the Indian masses were immersed
in depths of baseless superstitions. They believed
that a change of mind could not be introduced by
mere reforms. Even though the hindu law had
been modified multiple times, the evangelical
doctrine believed the the legislation was
powerless when it came to changes within the
human mind. Hence, Everything ultimately rested
upon the inward workings of the individual soul.
So, in order to free the mind from pollution and
superstition, education was deemed fit to
substitute it with Christian truth. All of this would
ensure that the Indian individuals were not only
free from ignorance and superstition but also have
both, the knowledge and disposition to improve
the earthly conditions. The british finally saw
success when in the 1870’s and 1880’s the
number of converts grew exponentially due to the
handsome incentives that were provided to the
downtrodden sections of the society.
Thomas Macaulay held the view that it was the
mission of the British to civilize rather than to
conquer and this is when Utilitarianism was born.
Jeremy Bentham preached that the ideal of
human civilization was to achieve the greatest
good of the greatest number. Good laws, efficient
and enlightened administration were the
underlining factors of change with the idea of the
rule of law to be supreme. The coming of James
Mill to the East India Company’s London office
that these doctrines came to be upheld. It was
due to his efforts that a Law Commission was
appointed under Lord Macaulay which drew up
the Indian Penal Code of 1835.
Even though most of the proposals made by all
the reformers were same, like Free trade with
cheap and efficient government, designed to
affect the rapid modernization of India. Yet, the
utilitarian ideology put forth by james mill and
bentham were distinct and isolated from the
broad point of view followed by the liberals.
While the Evangelicals laid stress on the role of
education and self-revelation in a changing
society, the Utilitarian emphasis was on
legislation, the might of law and its commands.
James Mill made happiness of Indians contingent
upon the nature of laws, the form of government,
and the mode of taxation. They preached the idea
that the end of happiness and not liberty was the
end of government, and that happiness was
promoted solely by protection of individual in his
person and property, suited the colonial
establishment.
Even though, both the evangelicals and utilitarians
had differing ideologies they also shared certain
broad similarities. Both had turned against the
tolerance and respect for Indian civilization
characteristic of the ages of Clive and Warren
Hastings. Both the movements were eerily similar
due to the fact that they promoted individualism
and tried to liberate the individual from the
shackles of slavery and from the ruthless nobles
and the priests. They shared the same agenda to
make every individual a free being, autonomous
agent, leading a life of constant deliberation and
choice.
To conclude, a wide variety of ideas and works
assess the british attitude towards india. Some of
them are contrary to one another, while some of
them alike. Therefore, to conclude, the years 1720
to 1820 saw varying interpretations of the Raj. For
the Orientalists, it was the rule of law that
embodied the universal principles of justice and
assumed that men everywhere, if unchecked,
could abuse their powers. While on the other
hand, the Romanticists argued that India was
different from England and even if there was
despotism, if it was exercised by enlightened
rulers, then it would flourish.