How long were the britons in india

Britain, on the other hand, had no indigenous written language until the 9th century CE almost 3, years after India. Its population was about 21 million in The keys seem to have been superior weaponry, economic power, and Eurocentric confidence.

After the Portuguese rounded the Cape of Good Hope on Africa's southern tip in , opening sea lanes to the Far East by piracy on ancient trade lines in the Indian Ocean , the European powers strove to acquire Asian trading posts of their own. For centuries, the Viennese had controlled the European branch of the Silk Road , reaping enormous profits from the sale of silk, spices, fine china, and precious metals.

The Viennese monopoly ended with the establishment of European incursions in the sea trade. At first, the European powers in Asia were solely interested in trade, but over time they became more interested in acquiring territory.

Among the nations looking for a piece of the action was Britain. Britain had been trading in India since about , but it did not begin to seize large sections of land until , after the Battle of Plassey. Fighting began on the morning of June 23, Heavy rain spoiled the Nawab's cannon powder the British covered theirs , leading to his defeat.

The Nawab lost at least troops, while Britain lost only The East India Company was primarily interested in the trade of cotton, silk, tea, and opium, but following the Battle of Plassey, it functioned as the military authority in growing sections of India as well. By , heavy Company taxation and other policies had left millions of Bengalis impoverished. While British soldiers and traders made their fortunes, the Indians starved. Between and , about 10 million people one-third of the population died of famine in Bengal.

At this time, Indians were also barred from holding high office in their own land. The British considered them inherently corrupt and untrustworthy. Many Indians were distressed by the rapid cultural changes imposed by the British. They worried that Hindu and Muslim India would be Christianized. In , a new type of rifle cartridge was given to the soldiers of the British Indian Army.

Rumors spread that the cartridges had been greased with pig and cow fat, an abomination to both major Indian religions.

On May 10, , the Indian Revolt began, with Bengali Muslim troops marching to Delhi and pledging their support to the Mughal emperor. After a year-long struggle, the rebels surrendered on June 20, Following the rebellion, the British government abolished the remaining vestiges of the Mughal Dynasty and the East India Company.

The Emperor, Bahadur Shah, was convicted of sedition and exiled to Burma. It should be noted that the British Raj included only about two-thirds of modern India, with the other portions under the control of local princes. His book India Conquered. Viewpoint: Why Britain does not owe reparations to India. Last days of the British Raj. Image source, Keystone.

British troops helped expand the empire's business and political interests in India. The British never intended to rule India. Image source, Hulton Archive. Many Indian soldiers were also part of British regiments during the Raj. The Indian mutiny was inspired by neglect. Fear of political challenge. Image source, Alamy. Image source, Topical Press Agency. Related Topics. They brought in an irrigation programme, which increased the amount of land available for farming by 8 times.

They developed a coal industry, which had not existed before. Public health and life expectancy increased under British rule, mainly due to improved water supplies and the introduction of quinine treatment against malaria.

Big landowners, Indian princes, the Indian middle classes all gained in terms of job opportunities, business opportunities and careers in areas like the law. Ordinary Indians gained little, but the argument still continues about whether British rule made much difference to their lives.

Many historians think that the majority of Indians would have remained poor even if they had been ruled by Indians. The debate about British rule in India. The largest rebellion against British rule took place in It was known in Britain as the Indian Mutiny.

This was because it began with a rebellion by Indian troops sepoys serving in the army of the British East India Company. British rule in India was handled by the East India Company.

Indian historians dislike the term 'mutiny' because it suggests that only Indian troops were involved. In fact, once some of the Indian troops did revolt, the rebellion against British rule spread rapidly and involved many local Indian leaders who had a wide range of complaints against British rule. The British preferred to think of the rebellion as a mutiny because this word disguised the huge scale of the rebellion. The word mutiny also covered up the involvement of ordinary Indians. The British preferred to keep this quiet as it suggested that British rule was not widely accepted in India.

Telegram alerting the British government to the outbreak of rebellion in India in By permission of the British Library. The rebellion lasted about 18 months. It was brutal and vicious. A democracy cannot function without a free press and just law. Neither truly existed under the Raj. The British were the first to establish newspapers in India, catering to a small English-educated elite first, and large audiences in the vernacular languages later.

However, alarmed by their proliferation, the East Indian Company passed the Censorship of the Press Act in , subjecting all newspapers to scrutiny before publication. In , all other kinds of publication, too, were brought under this rule. Once bitten by the bug and with strict adherence to the law not being insisted on over time, Indians continued with the enterprise. By , there were some newspapers in the subcontinent, mostly owned and edited by Indians.

Alarm bells rang again, bringing another round of censorship in the form of the Vernacular Press Act of and the revised Press Act of Under the latter, publishers were required to provide a hefty security deposit, which they would forfeit if the publication carried inflammatory or abusive articles.

The racism of the British-owned press was not subject to the same restrictions. The justice system in India was even more discriminatory. For instance, an Englishman who shot dead his Indian servant got six months in jail and a modest fine. But an Indian convicted of the attempted rape of an Englishwoman was sentenced to 20 years. Worse still, the legacy of the British legal system has left India with an unenviable judicial backlog.

There are still cases pending that were filed during the days of the Raj. Indeed, if a pluralist democracy were a British legacy, how is it that neither Pakistan nor Bangladesh have pulled off a similar feat?