Taylor Lach

HONR209C
9/10/15
The Metcalfs describe the Mughal period as one of far-reaching political, economic, and
social reconfigurations. Mughal emperor Akbar ruled for fifty years and spread Mughal control
north, east, and south-west, bringing about these significant changes in Mughal rule far and wide
in pre-colonial India. Not only was he a successful with expansion and conquest, but his
incredibly efficient and culturally diverse administration brought the Mughal empire its most
centralized era, and therefore, a very significant one. By incorporating powerful indigenous
peoples with Persians, Muslims, Arabs, Rajputs, Brahmans, Akbar unified the ruling elite under
the ideology of loyalty. This was proven and expressed through cultural forms, not affiliation to
any religion or tribe, which gave Akbar the most qualified counsellors. Akbar was also very
progressive in his framework for rule, which included nobles all over his empire with different
specialties in order to provide checks on each other. This way, no single noble had enough power
to begin to form any resistance against Akbar. He not only spread the Mughal empire farther than
anyone before him, but Akbar also held it together with a superior and incredibly diverse ruling
framework that could have lasted for centuries had other factors not interfered. For example,
after Aurangzebs death, the rapid decentralization of the country was characterized in part by
the beginning of Indias participation in global trade. The Mughal Empires economy was
enhanced in the seventeenth century by European interest in Asian commodities. Their cash-crop
production expanded due to demand, and the economic boom is evident in the extravagance of
rulers like Shah Jahan. This trade grew especially along the southern and eastern coastal regions,
and eventually gave rise to foreign participation in more than just Mughal economies, but Indian
politics.

Colonial rule in India was made possible by the successes of the East India Company, with
England as the key to its prosperity. Because of Britains position as an island nation with control
of the oceans, Britains export trade incurred huge profits for the country. It also put Britain
above all other rivals, allowing the East India Company to monopolize Indias mercantile classes.
Furthermore, once the East India Company gained control of Bengal, the richest province in India

at the time, it had the wealth to overpower any other players in the mercantile game in India.
But, with great wealth and size comes a greater challenge to control its territories, so the East
India Company began a sort of military fiscalism. This method employed governor generals to
impose regulatory standards on the indigenous peoples of India that now supplied goods for the
East India Company to Europe. Some impositions on the Indian people included the Bengal
Permanent Settlement Act, the Regulatory Acts, and the land-revenue system. These, including
army fielded by the East India Company, reconfigured and oppressed the Indic people until they
were economically vulnerable to colonial rule, which moved in once the East India Company lost
power.

The Metcalfs describe the revolt of 1857-58 as being referred to as the First War of
Independence and also a Mutiny by the colonial officials. I would agree with the description of
an attempted mutiny for better treatment because, while Dalhousies technological and
transportation advancements were connecting the country, the revolt was in actuality a series of
unorganized uprisings. To deserve the title of First War of Independence, I believe greater
unification of people under a common cause would be necessary. The Metcalfs cited instances in
North-Western Provinces where land-owning Indian people tried to snuff out rebellions while
those unhappy with British rule just joined in the anarchy for the sake of destruction. Many joined
for the prospect of independence, but even more remained loyal to Britain. Furthermore, there
were no central unifying figures with mission statements or appeals to British authority beyond
violence. Overall, a War of Independence implies camaraderie of a nation with a common goal,
while mutiny for better treatment sounds like a series of uprising over various maltreatments
by the mother country. The revolt of 1857-58 was, thus, a chaotic episode in the chronicles of
Indian history which culminates in an organized movement for Independence.

Warren Hastings believed that there existed distinct and separate codes of law for Hindus
and Muslims. In doing so, he began to practice of distinctly separating these religions into two
categories in order to organize Indias society. From there, coupled with the racism that already

existed between the superior white race and uncivilized natives in India, the British insisted
upon the administration of Hindu law. The boundaries between Hindus and Muslims became
dramatically apparent. As time went on in colonial India, however, press circulation and caste
mobility exposed the Indian people to the problems of this divide. One movement, the Arya
Samaj, founded by Swami Dayanand Saraswati taught that Hindus would disappear in the face of
Muslim and Christian conversion; they created new but traditionally-inspired rituals to convert
people who werent already Hindu. Other people decided to bridge the gaps between these
religions; Shri Ramakrishna taught that Vedantic Hinduism was a universal faith that synthesized
all religions. It embraced the Westernization of Indian traditions. Muslim movements did as well,
but not as drastically. The Deoband movement taught classical Islamic texts, but used British
classroom patterns, using Urdu as a language of prose. Altogether, the Hindus and Muslims,
politically separated by Britians generalization of religion, attempted to reorganize in the late
1800s with a resurgence of tradition or a blending of accepted Western ideas. The Metcalfs cite
that these traditionalist organizations have been more enduring in Indias linear history.

The Rowlett Acts allowed trial without jury and hostility toward Indians and prompted
Indian protest-nationwide. Hartal (work stoppage) and marches in major cities proved extremely
effective, but sometimes spilled over into violence, causing the government in those areas to
introduce martial law. The most famous and devastating of these was the Amritsar massacre.
The nationalists saw it as a symbol of colonial injustice. It was pre-Gandhi, but actually led to his
emergence into the spotlight of Indian Independence. It doesnt complement Ghandis take on
non-violence completely, but the refusal to work and marches coincide with his ideals. Another
form of anti-colonialism was the populist movement. They maintained Gandhis protection of the
cow and the terrorist campaign in early twentieth century. But, the populist nationalism
celebrated violence and those who died for the cause against the British. One famous Populist
icon was Bhagat Singh who bombed the British legislative chamber in Lahore. He was renowned
for escaping capture by dressing like the British, so he became an anti-Gandhian figure in image
and in ideal. He advocated violence rather than truth-seeking and said nothing about the

correcting the spiritual state of the nation. These demonstrations of nationalism, whether aligned
with Gandhis image of a spiritually reconfigured Hindu India, were just two of many efforts by
the Indian people to unite and free themselves from British rule.