Did the British conquer India
Did
the British conquer India? This question also arises because the
kind of democracy that is prevalent in the subcontinent suggests that this
democracy is still a slave.
Whenever a country was conquered in history,
the invaders came with their Lao army, there were bloody wars and if the
invaders remained victorious, then it would be permissible for them to seize
the treasures and wealth of the defeated country and nation.
Either
they consolidated their power by occupying the country or they looted and
returned. With this in mind, when we look at the arrival of the British and
their history, the first thing that becomes clear is that the British came to
India not as invaders but as traders. The aim was to make a profit through
trade.
Then under what circumstances did he move from
trade to politics and establish his power here? Professor of History Sir John
Sally at Cambridge University. He believes that English power did not come into
being under a plan but under an absent-mindedness.
The reason for this is that the fall of the Mughals has created a vacuum. The East
India Company had the opportunity to fill this gap and become a political
power. Contrary to this view, the Indian historian Mogharji in his book The rise and fall of the East India Company, in the history of rising and fall of
the East India Company, has emphasized that the company has sought
political power from the very beginning. ۔
. Because he hoped that this would result in more profit from a trade. So the
company gradually cleared its path to power under a plan.
After the political turmoil in India after Aurangzeb's death,
besides the British, French, and Dutch also came to India, so these trading
companies had security forces for their factories or warehouses. These soldiers
were Indians, but these soldiers were trained in the Western style, which
required discipline, while in India the soldiers were not properly trained, and
on the battlefield, they would take the form of mobs. ۔ Observing this, European tourists wrote that an experienced
general in Europe could defeat the Indians with his small organizing army.
The tradition of discipline in Europe was due to his civil war, which led him to
follow the orders of the generals at their respective places on the
battlefield. In southern India, especially between the British and the French,
there was a competition to contact the local states and ask them for trade
facilities.
On, On the other hand, these states used the French and the British in their wars for
their own interests. That is why these few European trading companies have
entered Indian politics.
In
this contest, the East India Company finally defeated the French, and from here
Robert Clive went to fight the Battle of Plassey in 1757. Victory in this war
paved the way for British rule and they gradually began to occupy the states.
India and the Mughal emperors became his helpers.
Read also:--- Can Britain get rid of the monarchy
English because he succeeded. When we analyze
this question, we come to the conclusion that East India did not bring troops
from England. All his soldiers were Indians, except his officers. He not only
trained his soldiers but also paid their salaries.
When
the company got civil rights in Bengal and Bihar, the Indian staff also started
collecting taxes. Lending to the company was also done by Indian bankers,
especially Jagat Seth. He not only provided financial support to the government
of the company but also collected taxes for it.
When
the company's government set up state-owned enterprises, it kept its officials
at a high level but gave these jobs to Indians at a lower level. The office
clerk, the policeman, the intelligence agent were all Indians.
According
to Indian tradition, loyalty to one's master was essential. Therefore, there
was no revolt against it. We realized this when the Indian troops revolted in
1857 and were ashamed that they had committed the crime of illicit salt. The
uprising of 1857 was crushed but with the help of the Indian Army.
After
1857, the rule of the Company came to an end and India came under the British crown, but the state administration was still the responsibility of the
Indians. Whenever the British government needed them, they were financially
supported by the Nawabs, Rajas, and the great feudal lords and feudal lords of
the Indian state.
He made foreign conquests
with the Indian army, such as Burma. He sent Indian workers to South Africa,
where he worked in the mines, and a large number of Indian workers went to the
West Indies. They used Indian professionals and office clerks in their African
colonies. Therefore, the upper Christians were in the hands of the British, but
the lower echelons of the government were run by the Indians.
When
the changing times and environment brought political consciousness among the
Indians, the bankers, and capitalists of India began to think about why they
should not be free to increase their capital and pursue their own interests. So
he provided funding to Congress and other parties to fight against British
rule.
Therefore,
when India became independent, the Indians who replaced the British in power
did not make any significant changes in the institutions and laws of the state,
nor did they include the people in their privileges.
That is why this freedom is meaningless to the common man because
even today the people of India and Pakistan are fighting for their basic
rights. They don't know much about the difference between a foreigner and their
own government.
Post a Comment