PDF Summary:The Anarchy, by William Dalrymple

How did a trading company, ostensibly formed for commerce, come to rule most of the Indian subcontinent and its millions of people for over 50 years? In The Anarchy, historian William Dalrymple charts the rise of the English East India Company during the 17th and 18th centuries, from a small outfit of merchants into the imperialist superpower that established British colonial rule in India.

Dalrymple is an award-winning Delhi-based historian who has written extensively on European colonialism in the Eastern hemisphere. Our guide explores how the English East India Company rose to power by exploiting a period of chaos and instability in India—when the once-powerful Mughal Empire had collapsed into smaller kingdoms that vied to fill the power vacuum. In the midst of this anarchy, the English East India Company forged alliances, backed coups, installed puppet rulers, and built the largest army on Earth. Our commentary delves into background historical context, the fallout from these events, views from other historians, and political theory that sheds light on the company's machinations.

(continued)...

How Is Jafar Remembered?

Jafar has a complex legacy. To this day, many Indians use his full name—Mir Jafar—as a shorthand for "traitor," the way many Americans use "Benedict Arnold." However, some argue that his reputation has been unfairly tarnished.

In particular, Syed Mohammed Reza Ali Khan, one of Jafar’s descendants, has spoken out in his defense. He asserts that people judge his ancestor by modern standards of Indian patriotism and nationalism that were not widely held during the 18th century: Jafar is accused of betraying the "nation of India," but during the 18th century, there was no such thing. Instead, 18th-century Indian nobles often fought with each other for power. Khan even points out that Siraj—Jafar's predecessor—also seized power in a coup.

The EIC Legitimizes Its Coups

Dalrymple notes that, though the EIC had now carried out two successful coups, it still faced a significant gap in legitimacy. Fortunately for the company, a potential ally had made his way to Bengal and was interested in talks. Shah Alam was a young Mughal prince who had been heir to the throne in Delhi before being ousted by his cousin in a succession dispute. After Alam narrowly escaped an assassination attempt, a romantic legend sprang up around the exiled young prince, and he attracted thousands of followers who considered him the true heir to the Mughal throne. While the EIC had power without legitimacy, Shah Alam had legitimacy without power. Their complementary needs suggested a natural alliance.

The EIC and Shah Alam reached an agreement: The EIC and Mir Qasim would pledge their allegiance to Alam as the true heir of the Mughal empire. Alam would formally recognize Qasim as the legitimate ruler of Bengal, legitimizing both coups. Then, the EIC would use its military forces to help the young prince march on Delhi and take back his throne. However, after Alam legitimized the coups, the EIC dragged its feet on its end of the bargain. Frustrated with his new "allies," Shah Alam left Bengal to join forces with Shuja ud-Daula, a Mughal prince ruling a neighboring kingdom.

Where Does Legitimacy Come From?

Max Weber's theory of political legitimacy can clarify how Shah Alam was able to legitimize Qasim’s rule and the EIC’s coup. Weber defines political legitimacy as the citizens' belief in the authority and prestige of their government. Weber identifies three primary sources of legitimacy: tradition, charisma, and legality. Here, we’ll discuss how the exiled prince Shah Alam fulfilled all three criteria:

• Tradition: The Mughals had ruled Bengal for over a century. As a Mughal prince, Alam's authority provided continuity with previous Mughal rule.

• Charisma: As we discussed, a romantic legend had sprung up around Alam, and his many followers considered him the true heir to the Mughal throne. Alam was also a renowned poet. These traits made him charismatic to the Bengali people.

• Legality: By formally swearing allegiance to Alam, the EIC and Qasim consecrated their rule within the legal framework inherited from the Mughals.

Event #4: The English East India Company Overthrows Mughal Rule in Bengal

Dalrymple says the EIC soon grew tired of Qasim's rule. A much more effective ruler than his father-in-law, Qasim raised taxes to balance the budget and pay soldiers their back wages. He rooted out corruption and built a strong administrative state. Qasim's competence made him much harder to push around, and the EIC missed the impunity it had enjoyed under Jafar. Additionally, Qasim recognized the EIC as a rival and sought to counter its influence by eroding the privileges it had obtained from Siraj. The EIC voted to formally declare war on Qasim and reinstate Mir Jafar as Nawab of Bengal. Its military campaign prevailed and drove Qasim out of the region.

What Constitutes a “Client State?”

The EIC sought to turn the Nawab of Bengal into a client state—a government that is independent in name but subordinated to a greater outside power. Understanding the political theory behind client-patron relationships will clarify why the EIC preferred a weak, flailing regime to a strong one. Political theorists define a client-patron relationship using three criteria:

• Unequal power: The patron state is much more powerful than the client state. In this case, the EIC had a stronger military than the Nawab of Bengal.

• Reciprocity: The patron and client state have some sort of exchange. Usually, the client state will serve the patron's economic and strategic interests in exchange for military protection.

• Informality: The client-patron relationship exists outside of formal and legal political arrangements. In this case, the Nawab was nominally independent but actually subordinated to the EIC.

Mir Jafar's reign fulfilled all three of these criteria. However, Mir Qasim violated the first by trying to equalize power in his attempt to build Bengal’s economic strength to rival that of the EIC. He then tried to violate the second criterion by refusing to prioritize the interests of the EIC. Understanding that Qasim wouldn't acquiesce to a client-patron relationship, the EIC sought to dispose of his rule and reinstate Mir Jafar, who could continue serving as its client.

Event #5: The English East India Company Repels a Mughal Alliance

According to Dalrymple, the EIC would face one more challenge to establishing complete rule in Bengal: an alliance between three Mughal princes. After his defeat, Qasim fled Bengal with his remaining forces and, like Shah Alam, sought refuge with Shuja ud-Daula. He then proposed an alliance between himself, Shuja, and Shah Alam to drive out the English.

The three princes assembled an enormous force and marched toward Bengal. However, the EIC managed to repel their attack, largely due to a crack in the princes' alliance. Dalrymple explains that Shah Alam wasn't fully committed to the alliance. Since Qasim and the EIC had both declared allegiance to him, the young prince saw this as merely a dispute between his subjects—and secretly remained in communication with the EIC. Thus, while Shuja’s troops charged into battle, Shah Alam’s held back, and Shuja’s army failed to defeat the EIC on its own. With the alliance fragmented, the EIC launched a successful counteroffensive and defeated Shuja’s army, cementing its rule in Bengal.

(Shortform note: Dalrymple characterizes Shah Alam's betrayal as born out of a naive, romantic worldview: The young emperor took the EIC's declaration of loyalty seriously because he still viewed himself as a ruler, even though he didn’t have a real empire to rule. However, other commentators looking back on this period have characterized his betrayal of Shuja and Qasim as a calculated decision born out of self-preservation. They argue that Alam saw the EIC as a rising power and believed that it was in his best interest to stay on the company’s good side.)

Part 3: The Company Rules Bengal (Mid- to Late 18th Century)

Now that we’ve discussed the EIC’s rise to power in Bengal, we’ll explore how it maintained power and governed the province. We’ll also describe the consequences of its policies, which drained the economy of Bengal, led to a disastrous famine, and triggered a financial crisis in Europe. Finally, we’ll discuss Britain’s reaction to company rule, which led to a shift toward more government oversight for the EIC.

How Did the Company Govern?

Dalrymple states that the EIC established rule over Bengal by carefully maintaining the old Mughal hierarchies. The tax collectors, soldiers, petty officials, and law agents were all the same as before. However, EIC men now sat at the top of every hierarchy.

This was done because 1) the company didn't have enough personnel to run the Bengal state on its own, and 2) EIC members knew that ordinary Bengalis would be less likely to revolt if the new regime looked more or less like the old one. The EIC also consolidated its rule by maintaining alliances with the Mughal princes it had just defeated.

A second key component of the EIC's governance consisted of systematically draining wealth from the Bengal economy. Though it now ruled a territory and subjects, the EIC still saw itself as mainly a joint-stock corporation whose primary responsibility was to its shareholders. Thus, the company sent as much wealth as possible back to England. The EIC used the tax revenue of the Bengali people as another stream of business revenue, spending most of it on trade goods bound for resale in England.

The Problem of Corporate Governance

The example of the EIC's governance in Bengal continues to play an important role in modern debates about corporate responsibility and accountability. As a corporation with its own military, mint, territory, and laws, the EIC provides an extreme case study of what happens when the lines between governments and corporations are blurred.

Governments and corporations are historically understood as entities with distinct responsibilities. Governments have much greater authority to set laws and apply coercive force, but they also have a moral obligation to the interests of their citizens—at least in theory. Corporations, on the other hand, have only an obligation to increase profits for their shareholders but are theoretically supposed to operate within the legal frameworks established by governments.

By blurring the lines between corporations and governance, the EIC combined the power and authority of governments with the narrow responsibilities of corporations. This enabled it to collect taxes from Bengali citizens and hand this wealth to their shareholders in the form of a dividend rather than investing it back into Bengal.

This conflict of interest has implications in debates over other situations where the line between government and corporate interests is blurred. For example, today, there's a rising concern about how much influence corporations are allowed to exert over governments through lobbying and campaign contributions. Critics also worry about what should be done in situations where powerful multinational corporations are operating in countries with weak governments.

What Were the Consequences of the Company’s Rule?

Dalrymple argues that the EIC's policies of wealth extraction had disastrous consequences for Bengal. Since none of the extracted wealth was reinvested in building the local economy, the province slowly became poorer and poorer. The EIC had reversed the flow of capital that had been coming into India since the earliest days of the spice trade. Now, money flowed from India to Europe at an alarming rate. In less than a decade of EIC rule, Bengal, once the wealthiest province in India, became one of the poorest. This led to two catastrophic events: the Great Bengal Famine and a financial crisis in Europe.

How Much Wealth Did India Lose Through Colonialism?

Economists and historians have attempted to calculate the total value of the wealth siphoned from India to Britain through colonial wealth extraction. The economic historian Utna Patnaik places the figure at almost $45 trillion between 1765 and 1938. However, this direct transfer of wealth may not even have been the largest economic impact. Economist Amartya Sen argues that British wealth extraction may also have slowed down India's industrialization. Sen compares India to Japan, which was never incorporated into a European colonial empire and industrialized during the Meiji Restoration in the late 19th century.

While India made some steps toward industrialization under British rule, this growth significantly accelerated in the 1950s, when the newly independent government made it a priority of economic policy. Sen argues that India likely missed out on potential wealth through lost opportunities for economic development.

1) The Great Bengal Famine

Dalrymple asserts the EIC's neglectful governance and economic pillaging paved the way for the Great Bengal Famine, one of the worst disasters in the region's history. In 1768-1769, Bengal suffered its worst drought in years, and 70% of crops failed. Farmers started selling everything they owned, and the poorer laborers starved to death.

While the EIC’s Mughal predecessors had maintained storehouses of grain to prepare for droughts, the company had no famine relief program at all. The company board didn't see this as the company’s problem, and it continued ruthlessly enforcing taxation to protect its bottom line. Though not an official company policy, private traders within the company also began hoarding grain to sell at exorbitant monopoly prices, making fortunes off the famine. An estimated 1.2 million people died, yet the company responded indifferently when locals tried to raise the alarm.

(Shortform note: The exact death toll of the 1770 Bengal Famine is unknown. The 1.2 million figure cited by Dalrymple was put forward by the economic historian Rajat Datta, a revisionist who argued that previous totals were inflated. However, some estimates have placed the number as high as 10 million. It's difficult to accurately estimate the figure for two reasons: 1) there was very little data on the population at the time, and 2) much of Bengal's enormous population loss could be attributed to displacement—people leaving the region in search of better conditions. However, it’s worth noting that Dalrymple is citing a conservative estimate.)

2) The Financial Crisis in Europe

Dalrymple asserts that these catastrophes set off a chain reaction that ultimately plunged Europe into a financial crisis. First, the destruction of Bengal’s economy dried up the EIC’s revenues. When Bengali citizens couldn’t pay taxes, the EIC lost much of its income. As a result, the company struggled to meet its financial obligations, defaulting on customs fees and loan payments back in Europe. As news of its failing finances spread, the company’s share price started to fall. Many European bankers had overinvested in EIC stock, and the company’s sudden decline caused over 30 banks to fail, triggering a recession across Europe.

How Do Asset Bubbles Cause Recessions?

Financial historians refer to this crash as “The Bengal Bubble.” We can shed light on this particular chain of events by examining the leading economic theories on how asset bubbles work and why they trigger recessions. Asset bubbles occur when the price of an asset (such as EIC stock) rises dramatically as buyers overestimate its value. This overvaluation snowballs as speculative investors expect that the price will continue to rise and, in anticipation of this appreciation, purchase extra assets. News of the asset's rising value attracts even more investors due to herd mentality and the fear of missing out.

The bubble "pops" when a price correction triggers a panic, and sellers try to get rid of the asset as quickly as possible before it depreciates further. This causes a dramatic drop in price, wiping out investments across the market (as demonstrated by the EIC’s falling share price). This sudden widespread loss of value can bankrupt financial institutions, leading to an economic downturn. Famously, a housing market bubble set off the 2008 financial crisis, and a stock market bubble contributed to the Great Depression of 1929.

18th-century European bankers likely overestimated the value of EIC stock because of their limited information on the company's activities across the globe. Bankers saw high-value goods flowing into England and enormous dividends paid out to shareholders but didn't understand the costs of running an empire or the destruction the company's predatory governance was causing to Bengal's economy.

How Did the British Parliament Respond to the Famine and Financial Crisis?

The British Parliament realized it needed to control the damage done by the EIC’s financial policies. Dalrymple explains that the Parliament’s response fundamentally reshaped the relationship between the EIC and the British government.

This response sought to balance several competing motivations. First, the British elites realized both the value of Bengal to Britain's economy and the liability of leaving it in the hands of a trading corporation. Furthermore, the EIC developed a bad reputation for violence and greed, even in England—leading to calls for greater government oversight from public critics and concerned officials. However, the British Parliament also sought to keep the EIC financially solvent. Britain’s economy was heavily intertwined with the company, and Dalrymple highlights that 40% of members of Parliament personally owned EIC stock.

The British Parliament first balanced the company's finances with a £1.4 million bailout in 1773, a sum unheard of at the time. Second, Britain claimed the right to appoint governors in Bengal and selected Warren Hastings, a reformer in the company who had tried to blow the whistle on the destruction in Bengal. This set in motion a process of gradually increasing government oversight and control that would continue over the next century.

Comparisons With the US Government’s 2008 Financial Crisis Response

The British Parliament's bailout of the EIC bears a striking resemblance to modern responses to financial crises, especially the US government's reaction to the financial crisis of 2008. Here we'll explore four key points of comparison.

1) Economic interdependence: Both the 18th-century British Parliament and the 2008 US government decided that certain industries were "too big to fail." In other words, they played such an important role in the national economy that allowing their failure would put other industries and the rest of the economy at risk.

2) Bailouts: Both responses included extensive corporate bailouts. In 2008, the US government focused primarily on bailing out the financial sector. However, Britain's response focused on stabilizing the stock price of the EIC with a direct bailout to the company, rather than bailing out the banks that had over-invested in EIC stock.

3) Lobbying: Corporate lobbying played a significant role in both government responses. The EIC lobbied Parliament for its vast bailout. In 2008, the US gave the largest bailouts to the banks that invested the most in lobbying.

4) New oversight: In both situations, the governments sought to impose new oversight on the industries whose actions triggered the collapse. In response to the 2008 crisis, the US government created a new office—the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB)—to set regulations for financial institutions. While this bureau sets regulations and rules, it has little decision-making authority over the day-to-day operations of banks. In contrast, the governor appointed by Parliament exercised broad decision-making authority over the EIC’s colony in Bengal.

Part 4: The Company Rises to Power in India (Late 18th to Early 19th Centuries)

Bengal wasn't the only part of India where the EIC had established itself by the time of the Bengali Famine and Britain's reassessment of its interests. Dalrymple states that the company had also begun asserting itself on the larger stage of regional powers vying for control of the greater Indian subcontinent. In this section, we'll take a look at the parallel empire building that paved the way for government control when Parliament ratcheted up its oversight of the EIC in the ensuing years. Specifically, the EIC rose to power in greater India through a series of wars against two major powers: the Mysore Sultanate and the Maratha Confederacy.

Conflict #1: The Anglo-Mysore Wars (1767-1799)

First, the EIC fought a series of wars against the Mysore Sultanate, leading to a dramatic expansion of its territory and resources. Dalrymple clarifies that the Mysore Sultanate was a powerful kingdom based in southern peninsular India and ruled during the late 18th century first by Hyder Ali and then by his son Tipu Sultan. The Mysore Kingdom commanded significant resources: It possessed superior numbers of troops and had narrowed the gap in military technology and tactics with assistance from French mercenaries. Additionally, the Kingdom had built its own munitions factories and artillery, funded by a strong silk-based economy. Lastly, Mysore had forged effective alliances, first with the Marathas and a central kingdom called Hyderabad, and then later with the French.

History of the Mysore Kingdom

By the time of its wars with the British, the Kingdom of Mysore already had an impressive track record of navigating the region's imperial politics.

Founded in 1399 at the site of the modern-day city of Mysore, this kingdom served as a vassal state to the Vijayanagara Empire—a mostly Hindu empire based in Southern India (1366-1646). As a vassal state, it provided military support and financial tribute in return for security from the Empire, but lacked the autonomy of a fully sovereign state. However, Mysore expanded its power and independence after the defeat of the Vijayanagara Empire at the hands of the Deccan Sultanates (an alliance of Muslim Kingdoms independent from the Mughals) in 1565.

Mysore maintained its independence by fighting against the Mughals and Marathas throughout the 17th century. However, under the emperor Aurangzeb, the Mughals eventually broke through and subordinated Mysore to Mughal leadership in the 1690s.

Nonetheless, Mysore maintained a degree of political and cultural independence. Its subordination consisted purely of paying financial tribute to Delhi. However, it was able to resist even this arrangement. The Mughal empire's grip on Southern India was loose enough that Mysore could get away with delaying payment or paying only partial sums.

Like the EIC, Mysore rose in military and economic might after the collapse of the Mughal empire. The kingdom was at the height of its power when fighting the British.

The Course and Outcome of the Wars

At first, Mysore succeeded at challenging British power in southern and eastern India, but Dalrymple explains that the war turned against it. The EIC suffered its first major defeat in India when Mysore marched on Bengal with 50,000 troops. Failing to repel the attack, the British bought off Mysore with an enormous tribute. However, over the next 30 years, under the commands of Warren Hastings, George Cornwallis, and eventually Richard Wellesley, the British took several steps which allowed them to overcome the Mysore Sultanate and conquer its territory:

• First, the company broke Mysore’s alliance by signing its own treaty with Mysore’s Maratha allies.
• Then it led a successful counteroffensive into Mysore territory. Tipu Sultan surrendered and Cornwallis extracted severe concessions, including 30 million rupees, half of Mysore’s territory, and two of Tipu's sons as collateral.
• Next, the EIC neutralized Mysore’s French allies by stealthily surrounding their primary army with artillery and demanding a surrender.
• Finally, the EIC led a decisive campaign to conquer the other half of Mysore territory, overwhelming the capital of Srirangapatnam with artillery and killing Tipu Sultan in battle.

This victory led to a vast expansion of the EIC's power. The company’s territory more than doubled and it appropriated much of the Sultanate’s wealth. Furthermore, it assimilated troops from Tipu’s former armies into its own, growing its total forces to over 155,000 troops, a greater force than the entire military of Britain.

What Happened to Mysore Under British Rule?

Dalrymple's analysis of the Anglo-Mysore Wars focuses on how these conflicts contributed to the EIC's rise to power in India. By exploring the war's wider impacts on Mysore itself, we can contextualize the character of the British rule that was to come.

After Tipu's defeat, Britain reinstated the Wodeyars—an ancestral dynasty of Mysore royals—as the nominal rulers of Mysore. The kingdom was made a "princely state" of the British Empire in India. This designation meant that the British did not directly administer Mysore's government, but Mysore's nominal rulers were still required to pay Britain tribute, house British armed forces, and defer to British officials on important policy decisions. This was a common arrangement under British rule in India that eventually included 565 "princely states."

The British revoked Mysore’s princely state status in 1831 when, disappointed by Mysore's economic performance, they accused local officials of corruption. Britain assumed administrative control of Mysore for roughly the next 50 years. In the late 1870s, another devastating famine hit, killing nearly one-fifth of the population (700,000 to 1,100,000 people). The Wodeyars petitioned for the restoration of their administrative authority and princely state status. Britain approved the petition in 1881, and Mysore remained a princely state until Indian independence in 1947.

Conflict #2: The Anglo-Maratha Wars (1775-1803)

Finally, the EIC established its rule in India by waging war against the Marathas, a powerful confederacy of Hindu kingdoms based in western India. Dalrymple explains that the Maratha rebellions had been the greatest contributors to the Mughals’ downfall, and that much of the former Mughal empire, including the capital of Delhi, now lay in their hands. The EIC’s first attempt to conquer the Marathas resulted in a decisive British defeat and the full return of captured territories in 1782. However, in its conquest of the Mysore Sultanate, the EIC acquired the resources to challenge the Marathas a second time. The company declared war on the Maratha Confederacy in 1803, led by Governor Richard Wellesley, his younger brother Arthur Wellesley, and General Gerard Lake.

(Shortform note: The Maratha nation was born out of organized Hindu resistance to Mughal rule. The lord Shivaji formally founded the nation on India's west coast in 1674, after spending much of his life waging guerilla warfare against the Mughal emperor Aurangzeb. After thwarting a Mughal attempt to reconquer their lands, the Marathas began successfully seizing Mughal territory. They struck a fatal blow against the Mughal empire's power at the battle of Malwa (central northern India) in 1705, precipitating the collapse of the empire. Afterward, Maratha territory grew to over 380,000 square miles, and much of modern partitioned India is former Maratha territory.)

Dalrymple identifies three major factors that determined the course of the conflict.

1. Division: At the conflict’s outset, the Marathas had fallen into a bitter civil war and thus couldn’t challenge the British with a united front. The EIC then stoked these divisions, signing a treaty with one of the weaker factions to further divide the alliance.
2. Technology: The British continued implementing new military technologies. For example, they began using "galloper guns''—horse-drawn artillery that could move into position faster than conventional cannons.
3. Finances: Many of India's biggest money-lending families began backing the company over the Marathas because of its large collateral and record of repayment. The EIC leveraged this capital to bribe the Marathas' French and Arab mercenaries into abandoning their posts, surrendering forts, and even joining the EIC army.

With these advantages, the EIC marched on Delhi and captured it from the Marathas. Dalrymple argues that this was the turning point in the war: Though the Marathas would continue resisting, the fall of Delhi established the EIC as the dominant power in the region.

How Internal Division, Technology, and Finances Determine the Outcomes of War

Most military analysts would agree that division, technology, and finances are key factors in determining the outcomes of war. However, a close look at some of the general theories can flesh out the specific roles they may have played in the conflict between the EIC and the Marathas.

• Division: Dalrymple emphasizes the role that division played in preventing the Marathas from mobilizing a larger force to oppose the British. However, unity and division also play a critical role in coordination between allies. The civil war and distrust between the Maratha factions may have prevented them from coordinating their troops more effectively.

• Technology: Dalrymple specifically highlights the role of artillery in this conflict. However, technology also plays an incredibly important role in military logistics. Standardization of equipment, preservation of food, storage facilities, map-making, and record-keeping are all essential to keeping a military force in fighting shape.

• Finances: While Dalrymple foregrounds the way the EIC leveraged its financial resources to bribe mercenaries, the biggest advantage of financial superiority is good supply lines. By investing more in the production of ammunition, food, clothing, and medical supplies, financial resources directly contribute to military effectiveness.

Part 5: Consolidation of British Power (Early to Mid-19th Century)

A private corporation, initially created for trade, now controlled half a million square miles and ruled over millions of subjects. Dalrymple explains that in 1803, the EIC consolidated its power by once again installing a puppet ruler who could lend a veneer of legitimacy to its regime. To do so, the company turned once more to Shah Alam, the exiled Mughal prince who had played a similar role in legitimizing the company's rule in Bengal and by now was an old man. The EIC tried to publicly frame its rule as a "reinstatement" of Shah Alam and a restoration of Mughal power—though in reality, the old Mughal state was now firmly under British command.

Dalrymple asserts that the EIC’s consolidation of power ultimately cleared the way for British rule in India. As we mentioned earlier, the British Parliament had already started questioning the wisdom of trusting Britain’s most important colony to a private company, and the increasing government oversight slowly transformed the company’s administration into a state-run enterprise. The British government officially took over in 1858, after a war for Indian independence stirred fears that the company was losing control of its empire. Nonetheless, Dalrymple asserts, the fall of Delhi truly marked the culmination of the EIC’s rise to power. The period of anarchy following the collapse of the Mughal empire was ending, and a new era of British dominion was beginning.

Indian Resistance to British Colonialism

The establishment of British dominion in India also marked the beginning of a long struggle for Indian Independence from British rule. Here we'll explore some of the key events that ultimately led to Indian independence.

• In 1857, Indian soldiers in the EIC's Bengal army organized an armed rebellion against their English officers. The revolt was incited by a perception that the English were using beef and pork lard to grease the soldiers' gun cartridges, angering Hindus and Muslims (since these religions condemn those products, respectively). The rebels succeeded in taking back Delhi, and rebellions spread throughout the subcontinent.

• In 1885, India formed a national congress. While still lacking the authority to overturn British policy, the Indian National Congress served as a platform for Indians to advocate for their rights and eventually organize around the cause of independence.

• During the early 20th century, independence movements spread across the subcontinent. Influenced by the leadership of Mahatma Gandhi, these movements practiced nonviolent resistance, including boycotts, demonstrations, political and economic non-cooperation, and other forms of civil disobedience. These movements eventually succeeded in overturning British rule and achieving independence for modern India and Pakistan in 1947.