Chapter 4 notes: Mughal Empire
-Two recurring themes so far: infusion of new peoples/idea, and cycles of
centralization/decentralization
-Can investigate these themes more closely in the context of the Mughal Empire, from
1526 to 1707 to 1857
-Mughal Empire has been misperceived by Orientalists as an Oriental Despotism—a
civilization which is overbearing on its people, highly centralized, revenue-extracting
machine over passive societies, autonomous group formation. In actual fact, it is a more
loose, nuanced form of hegemony with diverse and dynamic economy.
-Babur is a Mongolian Turk from Kabul who conquered Punjab and then Delhi Sultanate
(Lodi) in first battle of Panipat 1526. Founder of Mughal empire, died soon after
-Son Humayun took control over a shaky govt., ousted by Suri in 1540, returns in ’55
after Suri’s death, dies soon after
-Akbar faced immediate challenge from the Afghan/Rajput Millitary coalition, subdued it
in 2nd battle of Panipat, conquers Bengal and Gujarat gives agricultural and economic
advantage. Expands the empire tremendously, great patron of the arts/culture
-Successors (Jahangir, Shah Jahan, Aurengzeb, ending in 1707) grow empire primarily in
the southern direction (Bijapur and Golconda)
-Maratha Leader Shivaji fiercely resists Aurengzeb’s conquests…becomes a hero
-Administration: Mansabdar (local military rulers, had to provide men to the cavalry on
demand) system, paid with revenue from jagirs (non-heritable land grants), subdhars
(governors) at the top, zamidars (landlords) at the bottom who had to collect taxes
-Akbar placed Hindus at top spot including Mansingh as his chief general, abolished
Jizya, changed calendar to the solar one, founded Din-e-Ilahi—a universalist religion,
brought other religious leaders to his place of worship in Fatehpur Sikhri, married a
Rajput Hindu Princess
-Not popular among ulema (scholar in Islamic jurisprudence) but he maintained order.
-Aurengzeb reversed some of the religiously flexible policies for mostly economic
reasons than anything else.
-Although the Mughal State extracted a tremendous proportion of the total output of the
agrarian sector, the method of collection was highly decentralized, and statistics show a
great amount of agricultural growth under such rule. Peasant revolts under Aurengzeb
were mostly by farmers who were prosperous and wanted to keep more.
-Gained quite a bit from Oceanic trade but had a weak navy which allowed European
ships to control the sea lanes. Portuguese opened up Goa in early 1500s but did not
monopolize trade thanks to Arab/Gujaratis as well as Ottomans. English succeeded
Portuguese as traders, English EIC began trade in 1619 under Jahanigir with few costal
forts
-Mughal Empire was based on a lot of political and economic flexibility, merchants had a
autonomy in trade, empire richens with inflow of precious metals from European traders
-Created a parallel system of courts to supplement local sharia courts.
-Women had a lot of influence in the royal family.
-Culturally rich period, many developments in music, art, language, architecture (Taj,
Red Fort), etc. which resulted from a confluence of cultures
-Mughal empire ends in 1857 when Brits try Bahadur Shah Zafar in Red Fort, exile to
Burma, and exterminate the rest of the Mughal imperial line.
Chapter 5 Notes: India between Empires
-General historiographical misconception that the age inbetween empires was dark; in
fact it mixes high and low points, should not confuse erosion of power with erosion of
socio-political-economic erosion.
-Aurengzeb’s death in 1707 marks the end of era of great Mughals and entrance into era
of lesser Mughals. Agrarian revolts and dissent reached its greatest intensity in the 18th
cent., many theories as to why (Hindu, peasants economically oppressed by Mansabdars,
factional conflict among Mughal Nobility, withdrawal of financial support by banking
firms)
-Recent Analysis points to: Imbalances of wealth and class disparities, invasions of Nadir
Shah and Abdali, disruption of bullion flow from Europe due to surge in European
production
-Nadir Shah sacks Delhi in 1739, much land goes from Mughals to Marathas, Subadars
appoint themselves nawabs (independent rulers)
-Mughal emperor is totally aloof, didn’t even participate in the third battle of Panipat—
1761—where Abdali defeats Marathas
-Brits. win battle of Plassey giving them political control over Bengal, company defeats
refugee Mughal Emperor’s army in Buxar in ’64, giving them the diwani of Bengal (right
to revenues)…After overcoming fierce resistance from the Marathas, captured Delhi in
1803.
-The weakening of the Mughal Emperor allowed for the rise of power in revenue farmers,
merchants, bankers, and service gentry. All Nawabs recognized Mughal as quintessence
of legitimacy but power was greatly decentralized by that time. Retained some Mughal
administrative practices.
-Mughal Successor States took 3 forms: 1) independent kingdoms ruled by Subadars
dependant on merchant bankers, 2) Warrior States, and 3) local kingdoms which became
more substantial over course of 18th century.
-Traditional ports decline as colonial ports took their place. Maintains cultural vitality
(Bhakti, Usuli—rational—islamic jurisprudence continues, Carnatic Music). Held out
many attractions to Brits waiting to take advantage of them.
Chapter 6 Notes: Transition to Colonialism
-Transition to Colonialism begins with conquest of Bengal in the 50s and ends with
Punjab and Awadh in the 1840s. Several important issues here: impetus behind
expansion, reasons for colonial conquest in an era of decolonialization, collaboration
between EIC and Indian intermediate social groups, and the factors producing B. success.
-Europeans wanted to stop the flow of precious metals to India, dominated external trade
and shipping, resulted in the wrecking of the regional state system
-British and French EICs got involved in internal politicking by offering their military
services to one over another, and in the process, made an economic profit French
eventually lost out.
-Beginning of the end: Bengali Nawab Siraj-ud-daula, succeeding his highly diplomatic
father—opens up too many fronts at the same time, calls for end to English fortifications
in Calcutta, they do it anyway, Nawab brings his troops in and crushes them, English
avenge their humiliation by sending in a Madrasi force under Robert Clive. Through
some bankers, he bribed Mir Jaffar to be a turncoat, killed daula in battle, and got tons of
cash. Advised his superiors to keep up the chase for more land and more money.
-Another nawab, Mir Kassim, tried to consolidate power, battle of Buxar highlighted him,
nawab of Awadh, and Mughal Emperor against EIC. EIC wins diwani of Bengal.
-Revenue was used to finance further conquest of other parts of India. Tried to sell
protection to nawabs at high cost to make them unpopular among their people and prime
them for assimilation (subsidiary alliance system). Took Gujarat in 1803.
-Awadh is a good example of subsidiary alliance erosion. Signed on to the protection
contract, alienated all of his zamindars, ceded all his western terr. in 1800, along with
Arcot.
-Mysore and the Maratha Confederacy was a tougher task. Haider Ali and Tipu Sultan
had a highly efficient bureaucracy, prosperous peasantry, and minimal political
corruption. Tipu made very skillful alliances with Marathas and fought to stalemate in
late 1700s, but British ultimately won out in 1799.
-Marathas adopted some of the Mysorean methods of taxation and revenue collection.
They resembled the Mughals for a while, but then were forced into a subsidiary alliance
by Wellesley. Brit’s capture of Delhi irked them and they took their last stand in 1818,
ending in their defeat.
-Last to go was Punjab/Sind under Ranjit Singh in the 90s. Eventually captured in 1840s,
though the British made a big mistake in their siege of Kabul, where they lost a lot of
men. Punjab fell after Singh dies with the alliance of Jammu’s Dogra. He was granted
“permament protection” and had to pay annual tribute.
-Needed to finance wars by using doctrine of lapse (Satara, Jhansi, Nagpur). Annexed
Awadh in 1856 during the peak of company conquest.
-All in all, this analysis reveals local resistance, interactions between EIC and merchant
capitalists, and the pressures driving the Brits to conquest.
Chapter 7 Notes: Brit rule from 1757to 1857.
-The political framework changed under the Brits in a continuous yet significant manner.
-The state was essentially a military despotism. Recruited local Indian sepoys to
supplement company force. Essentially a mercenary army, highly effective. Together
with Madras army and other forces, has the largest standing army in the world (155,000).
-Developed a civilian bureaucracy, although formal authority lay in the board of directors
in London. Parliamentarians didn’t like it and impeached Warren Hastings, first gov.
general. Nevertheless, they had much local autonomy since they are so far away. Upper
administration was all British.
-Granted limited autonomy to Indian rulers who acknowledge British lordship. British
residents of princely states were influential in internal administration. Overall, an
efficient means of management.
-Company generated mechanisms to keep the stability and security of land revenues
intact. “Permanent settlement” arrangement assigns revenue collection to the Zamindars,
Early on, many defaulted under pressure of debt because they could not force tenants to
produce more and the revenue demand was high. In the 19th century, colonialists gave
zamindars more power like the power of eviction.
-Barrage of criticism that free trade is the best way to sell British goods in Asian market.
1810s, India can’t compete with cheap British textiles, 1813 Charter act ends the EICs
monopoly of trade w/ India.
-China tea trade now is crucial to the company. Without land, EIC would be wiped out.
Force cultivation of indigo, and production of opium in India finances the tea trade.
Depression and economic downturn in the 20s and 40s respectively hit India hard.
Despite strong demand for Indigo in war and fashion, cultivation was fairly
unremunerative and so was overthrown in Bengali “Blue Mutiny” in ’60.
-Company did little to contribute to economic growth or equity in early 19th century,
having already taken everything they wanted from the pre-colonial economy. Peasant
mobility severely limited due to the state’s rent/revenue policy. Not many restraints from
labor exploitation.
-Masked political immoral behavior with ambiguity. Racist Wellesley has his men
approach puppet Mughal with reverence, makes a coin after him, keeps most of the
common law and court systems. Bentinck abolished Hindu practice of Sati. To
galvanize Hindu commercial and clerical support, they had a state-sponsored neoBrahminical ruling ideology. Many didn’t buy their cultural bribery.
-Began building railways, looted revenues of quasi-independent states, tried to soften the
edges of political economy by lowering revenue rates.
Chapter 8 Notes: Reinvention and Reform of Tradition
-Old historiography seems to suggest that India was shaped almost entirely by British
colonialism. More accurately, the company raj was all about invented and consolidated
the traditional India of the peasant and Brahmin. Settled Indian community was
fashioned by the British (sedentarization) to tie it to the wider world economy.
Crystalized the Brahminical hierarchy into practice and formalized sharia into a legal
code.
-Two times must be separated from each other. The first is the late 18th century and the
second is the early 19th century. The first is characterized by military aggression and
economic plunder but not much social intervention. Latter half has the British trying to
achieve legitimacy by formulating a neo-brahminical and pseudo-Mughal ruling
ideology.
-Of the three driving currents—Free Trade, Utilitarianism, and Evangelism—the last was
least successful. 1813 Charter Act breaks the monopoly and opens up the shores, even to
Christian missionaries. Utilitarian-driven policies are most successful.
-Divide up social change between rural and urban centers. In the rural areas, Brits
defined the boundary between forests/pastoral lands versus agricultural plains, assaulted
the forests and caused disruption of tribal lands as well as climate change. Subjected to
discipline and immobility of agriculture. Subjugation of tribes and nomads gives rise to
settled peasant family as the common unit, some tea plantations here and there.
-British begin task of rank-ordering groups vis-à-vis brahminism. Some social
movements like the Satya Narayanis of Gujarat had a coherent ideological rejection of
Brahminism. Science and reason has reached many urban centers long before sociallyinterventionist, utilitarian governor-general Bentinick had arrived on the scene. (Hindu)
Presidency College (English Language) of Calcutta was founded in 1818 due to Indian
initiative.
-Young Bengal group from Hindu College flaunted Westernization. Conservative
reaction was from Dharma Sabha (Radha Kanta Deb, patron of the college and supporter
of western ed.), even petitioning against Beninck’s abolition of Sati. Didn’t defend the
practice, just the Brit’s interference in it. Ram Mohan Roy wanted to re-rationalize
tradition and bring about a reformation in the process. Formed Brahmo Samaj, rejected
caste, idolatory, sati, and wanted a return to the monotheism of the Upanishads. Used the
Vedas, the source of the conservative opposition, to tear down arguments. Strong
proponent of British Education system, called upon them to promote this in India (182030). Many others followed suit in other parts of the country including Sayid Ahmad
Khan in the north.
-Education-wise, attituted are very different. Indian’s see English education asa means
of self-strengthening (proto-nationalist), which British Colonial attitude was primarily the
desire to civilize, to create interpreters to understand those who they ruled over. Bengali
and Urdu were important at the lower levels of public administration, English and Urdu
was imported to Punjab.
-Muslims resisted the westernization of the society and instead embraced reformist
movements.
-The time was not one without revolts. Both subaltern and landed magnates resisted
colonial authority. Some of the most fearsome uprisings came from the tribal leaders.
Most famous was Santhal hool of 55-56. Urban resistance centered mostly on artisans
like weavers.
-Overall, the time was turbulent, resistance was widespread, both logic and overt policy
were equally important in causing turmoil, the only problems with the resistance was 1)
lack of organization and 2) lack of temporal convergence. 1857 mutiny changes this.
Chapter 9: 1857 Rebellion, Collaboration, and Transition to Brit. Raj.
-The mutiny of 1857 is complicated, many factors go into its creation. What’s unique
about this one in particular is the temporal convergence, expanded scale, and the level of
intensity.
-Soldiers lost pay bonuses for service abroad, lost prestige with annexation, and of
Awadh, and families had high land revenue taxes. Rifle Cartridges greased with cow and
pig fat was repulsive, those who would not use the cartridges were sentenced to jail.
Others felt bad, mutinied, marched to Delhi, installed Bahadur Shah Zafar (Mughal
Emperor) as symbolic head of revolt. Concentrated in Delhi, word of the revolt spread to
garrison towns and the countryside. Brit Army in East is separated from the army in
Punjab.
-Second field of the revolt happened in Awadh, where political and economic
resentments ran deep. Brought about the collapse of the Brit. admin., Brit. troops had to
win back Awadh village by village.
-3rd focus: Central India, Maratha territories, Rani of Jhansi died fighting the British on
horseback.
-War was mostly confined to the north and central India. Nizam of Hyderabad tried to
keep the mutiny away from his kingdom. Sikhs of Punjab were placated by the Brits and
easily contained. Force on its way to China was diverted to Bengal to help put it down.
-Was fired by a series of regional patriotisms. Nobles were deeply angered by British
treachery in making and breaking treaties whenever they please. They offered the people
a return to Mughal Soverignty, which was good in some sense but also alienated rivals
from participating (Hyderabad).
-Religious Millenarianism was an important theme in the 1857 revolt. British singled out
the Muslims as responsible. Many muslim preachers were predicting the fall of the
company raj, many groups declared a jihad on the company. Some proclamations of
jihad recognized the common threat against Hindus and Muslims alike.













Chapter 10: High Noon of Colonialism, 1858-1914: State and Political Economy
After mutiny of 1857, the crown takes control of India from the company
mismanagement. India was fashioned into a colony in the classic pattern—used for
trade balancing of payments/captive market and strategic defense.
Shift in control => shift in titled positions (governor general => viceroy), first task is
to reorganize the British Indian army and civil bureaucracy to reassert its authority
after the ’57 revolt.
The ratio of british to Indians in the army was crystallized to never fall below 1:2,
maintained till WWI. Counterposing natives against natives in classical colonial
pattern to maintain dominance. Justified racial recruitment on the basis of whack
theory of racial propensities in war. Regional favoritism left an negative indelible
colonial mark on the subcontinent.
Indians fought in battles all over the world as part of the British Indian army, and
often not to India’s strategic benefit. But Indian taxpayers paid for these wars
anyway.
Natl. Bureaucracy entrance was stacked against Indians (civil service exams held only
in London for long time, senior officials were always british, even lower levels of
admin were blocked even to educated and qualified Indians).
Also a restructuring of the political economy. India was captive market for British
manufactured goods, but also a source of agricultural raw materials (jute, cotton,
wheat, etc.). Funneled back to London via export surplus, used mostly to pay off
administrative costs, foreign wars etc., and generally not helpful to Indians =>
classical colonial economic exploitation. Switching the rupee standard from silver to
gold caused depreciation, increasing the real value of India’s payments to Britain.
There was an economic drain of wealth of 5-6%: stirling => council bills => rupees
=> product (jute) => rupee profits reconverted to stirling to renew the cycle
India was crucial to the balance of payments between ’70 and WWI. Growing
protectionism in Europe made it impossible to sell manufactured goods. Captive
marked ensured a balance. Britain=deficit world, surplus India, India=opposite.
Nationalists caught on to the drain of wealth theory: while it is not clear that funds
were unilaterally taken away from India, they were invested in things not beneficial to
Indians, they should have been reinvested within country
Charges of exploitation called for change in governance. Changes in tenancy
legislation because of the need to increase purchasing power of agrarian populace to
support the market for British goods. Merchants prefer credit over rent mechanism to
siphon off agricultural surplus => peasants=a cycle of debt, lenders=cheap cash crop.
Commercializing Indian farming exposes them to the world market’s ups and downs.
Peasants shift to high-value labor-intensive crop to subsist, experience periods of
boom followed by an even harder bust.
Increasing pressure to maintain India as the most important outlet for Brit. Man.
Goods. India prevented from raising customs, then customs were eliminated entirely.
When customs became a last resort due to dire financial circumstances, British
counterslapped a tariff on the infant textile industry of Bombay—the first major
Indian step into industry—rather than helping it along with protective tariffs
Indian colonial economy was greatly disadvantaged. Natl. critics claim
deindustrialization given that artisan exports dwindled. Counter critics say that






maybe Indian domestic economy absorbed all artisan output, but this is invalidated by
arguments comparing gross natl incomes of India and Britain => insufficient demand.
Also, some internal econ. clashes: cheaper yarn is good for weavers, bad for spinners.
Indian railways is a prime example of metropolitan imperatives taking precendence
over colonial interests. Constructed to serve the needs of Britain (movement of brit.
man. goods, extraction of resources to port cities, troop movement). Foreign Capital
investment results in guaranteed returns regardless of the profits of railroads.
Outflow of interest from India exceeds inflow of capital.
Britain was in search of Indian backers after the revolt of ’57. Reinvented the
structure of rule from Indian layered sovereignty to unitary sovereignty via
buttressing traditional princely rule in exchange for loyalty. No move to make
Indians citizens, just subjects of empire and traditional princes.
Tried to push for supporters beyond princes. Taluqdars (aristocrats in Awadh) who
were loyal in ’57 were given economic protection. Helping of landlords was
balanced by protection to peasants. local self-gov. introduction=beginning of demo.
Created provincial councils (1861) in Bombay, Bengal, and Madras. British majority
but some non-official Indians consulted. Viceroy extended idea to increase indian’s
say in local politics. Costs for councils were tariffed locally. Partly accepted the idea
of elected reps. “Morley-minto” extended links between lower and higher councils.
Morley-Minto (‘09) extends differential patronage to various categories like Muslims
and depressed classes, reforms were extended in the Montagu-Chelmsford (‘19) and
then gov. of India act of ’35.
Curzon generation (turn of century) was characterized by increased arrogance and
racial superiority. Underlying position was that of insecurity: competition from
European imperial rivals and back-talk from Indian natl’sts, who are already talking
about swaraj. State of affairs was bad with widespread famine and disease.
Chapter 11: Nation in Making, rational reform, religious revival, swadeshi, ’58-‘14
 Old historiography focused on the politics of western educated elites, use founding of
INC (‘85) to mark the beginning of real nationalism in India. Modern focus includes
movements by subaltern groups. Anti-colonialism is now seen as much more than
just dissent by western-educatees. There is social reform informed by reason and
religious revival that rejects this. This movement is complicated, not necessarily a
convergence of beliefs but inter-connectedness. Competing narratives informed by
regional, linguistic, and religious differences all contributing to the discourse on the
Indian nation.
 Some impetus for the redefinition in social identities was caused by the British census
taking. Some castes rewrote their history to move up the ranks.
 The British announced an intention not to interfere with religion and tradition but it
ended up doing so by classifying majority and minority classes in its census. It also
favored religious associations over linguistic and regional identities. Regardless of
internal differences among muslims, they were clubbed together as one artificial
political unit, encouraged to emphasize religious identities in the putting forth of
political aims. This caused anti-brahmin reactions...low caste uprisings
 Social Reform and Religious revival both characterize this nationalistic period, but
both are too complicated to be pigeonholed into the standard dichotomies








(modern/traditional, reform/revival, etc.). Some progress in widow remarriage and
age of consent raising. During epidemic, colonially-imposed medicines were rejected
by the populous more as a rejection of autocracy than a rejection of medicine itself.
Colonial irresponsibility in the arena of public health.
Conflict between revivalists and reformers in the context of religion. No necessary
contradiction between rational and national.
19th century maharashtra was the center of hindu revival and reform (Brahminical
overtones). Lajpat rai headed the arya samaj movement under dayananda saraswati,
reforming many social issues from the context of Hindu supremacy over other faiths
(supremacist overtones). Calcutta had Ramakrishna and Vivekananda, the latter was
very rational and visionary in conceptions of tolerance, religion, and nationalism.
Overall, the time was characterized by both movements.
There is no fault line between trandition and modernity. There was constant give and
take. Bankim Chatopadyay and Rabindranath Tagore drew upon rationalism and
humanism in the modernist and nationalist view. Attitude to European modernity
was discriminating and judicious. Aurobindo Ghose makes this point strongly
Variety of responses by muslim intelligencia. Sayid Ahmed Khan tried to alter british
conceptions of disloyalty by urging followers to accept british edu but not its ideals.
Established his own school in ’75 with British patronage, but they were guarded
against value intrusion. Ulema rejected him but ashraf classes enrolled in large
numbers. Affluent muslims challenged brits on the legal injunctions involving
Islamic code. Conservatives bashed him for shallowingly adopting European culture.
But not everyone disagreed with him on every single account. Allahabadi agreed
with the schooling idea but disagreed with Khan’s proposal that muslims not join the
INC.
Subaltern anti-colonialism predated the urban elite’s attempt to mass mobilize against
british rule.
Intelligensia was articulating their disaffection in local political associations, these
groups banded together to become INC in ’85, w/ 73 self-appointed delegates. Made
of professionals, lawyers, et al. Early leadership was moderate, operated in a
constitutional fashion of raising petitions etc. Nationalist writers critiqued Britain’s
economic policies (land-revenue demand leading to famines, wealth-drain, abuse w/
indentured labor). Called for cutbacks in govt. military expenditure and increased
capacity for Indians to determine budget. Congress was moderately successful, but
90s onwards were characterized by bolder approach (inspired by Tilak’s ganesh
festivals and assassination of hated plague commissioners). Curzon’s harsh
imperialism added more fuel to the fire.
Curzon tried to revoke concessions in education and local government. Partitioned
Bengal in ’05 to divide and conquer. Pitted Muslims against Hindus by seating
muslims in Dhaka. Muslim league founded in ’06. Asked his successor Minto for
separate electorates.
Stiff resistance to partition of the province => beginning of swadeshi. 4 Strands of
the swadeshi movement: 1) old moderates who believe in constitutional methods but
offended by curzon’s aggressive measures (Banerji, Gokhale), 2) Self-strengthen
before head-on collision with British Raj (Tagore), 3) assertive leaders who believed






in passive resistance w/ violence only if repression is intolerable, 4) revolutionary
terror is the only way.
Early on, atmashaktis began program for boycott and natl edu, constitutionalists
redefine swaraj as something close to full independence. Boycott of british cotton
was highly effective. Bande Mataram became the rallying cry, Bankim
Chatopadhyay’s poem was slightly controversial in that it refers to mother Bengal,
equates her with the mother goddess, and is in a novel with anti-muslim sentiment.
Extremists decided to hold on violence as a tactical move. Boycott resulted in a
recover of local industry and artisanal crafts but Calcutta/Bombay manufacturers
hiked up prices to squeeze extra profit, making the movement expensive. Muslims
rioted against hindu moneylenders/traders in Bengal.
Political activism took root in Punjab, Maharashtra and Madras outside of Bengal.
Extremists were on the defensive at the next congress session. Constitutionalism took
root. Extremist leadership was imprisoned but the british ended up going back on
promises to Bengali muslims, annulled partition in ’11. Moved capital out of Bengal
into delhi. New viceroy was met in Delhi by a bomb.
Swadeshi era was characterized by redefinition of nationalist aims and cultural
reawakening. Prevailing narrative was that of difference and universality
(reason/humanism), rejected European concept of nation-state (Ghose: should not
crush communal liberties/freedoms of regional peoples, no Unitarian imperial state).
They steered a creative path where there was no contradiction between tradition and
modernity. The vision embraced the spiritual treasures of the Hindus, Muslims, and
Europeans in so far as it is rational…distinctly universal in aspiration
Anti-colonial thought in this era left contradictory legacy in context of
religious/linguistic/regional communities. British had defined Hindu’s as majority, so
easier to seep into the discourse. Granting of communal electorates in ’09
complicated further. Difficult to be muslim communitarian and Indian nationalist
Nationalist ideologues argued that the structure of an Indian nation would have to be
(con)federalist (Bharata was the prince at the center of princes, Moghul was the
same). Tagore and Iqbal were prepared to be patriots but not nationalists.
Coexistance of multiplicity of identities had a stable point here but not for longer.
Chapter 12: Colonialism Under Siege: State and Political Economy after WWI
 Severe dislocations of economy brought by WWI leads to mass nationalism of 20s.
1:2 ratio of brit to Indian soldiers is lost. 60K goto mesopoatamia. Many die.
 Financing the war effort caused the most detrimental effects. Defence expenditure
goes up 300%, printed more money to pay for it, inflation causes shortages and highprices. Industrial sector benefited, though, insofar as they were protected by duties.
They did will from 19-20 but fell in the worldwide slump of 20-22.
 The british were able to pull the war off without much resistance, even pulling British
soldiers out of India to send them abroad. There were different viewpoints on what to
do about the war. Gandhi saw nothing contradictory with recruiting soldiers andnonviolent protest. Radicals wanted to take advantage of it, moderates wanted something
in return, revolutionaries purchased guns, muslim clergy argued against fighting in
middle east. Increasing cooperation btwn. Muslim league (which Jinnah, a congress
man, is invited to join) and congress => Lucknow pact of ’16 which allows for










separate electorates for muslims in order to bond against common enemy. Tilak out
of prison, welcomed back to congress, sets up home rule leagues around country
British had to punish revolutionaries and assuage moderates. The ploy to divert
attention away from the center was veiled by promises to introduce responsible
government in India. Moderates were not pleased by the Montagu-Chelmsford
reforms of ’19 which goes a step further from the ’09 policy of separate electorates
via the creation of diarchy—places local self-gov in the hands of Indian ministers,
had property and edu requirements which tended to favor raj-supporters.
1935 act increases franchised voters and autonomy of regional government,
increasing Indian involvement at all levels of power. But the real key discretionary
powers were in the hands of the viceroy (ability to curb power in provinces, defence,
foreign affairs, etc.) and the beginning of federationism only happens when ½ the
provinces accede.
Colonial state devolves authority in some places and increases it in others. Brings
localities in greater contact with each other. Pitting Indian against Indian and
directing attention away from the center allowed the british to maintain colonial
agenda—strategic and economic.
Political economy also changed from that during its high noon. Dislocation of war
provided protection to india’s textile industry, which beat out the Lancashire mills by
a lot. Depression wiped out british industry access to Indian market as well as wiping
out india’s export surplus. By putting pound off the gold standard and pegging the
rupee to it, there was an outflow of gold to Britain. To fight back against depression,
conducted deflationary policy which halted flow of foreign funds into India, crunched
credit, and collapsed agrarian prices.
Depression caused London to loose some control to Delhi (tax collection etc.) but
finances were held. Central bank of London in control (currency, credit). British
firms established in India to allow continued benefits of Indian possession.
Chapter 13: Gandhian Nationalism and Mass Politics in 20s
Indians has opposed the raj through constitutional, extra-constitutional, and armed
insurrection but to no avail. Gandhi arrived with “non-violence” like a colossus.
Gandhi’s major political philosophical contributions are contained in his Hind
Swaraj. Rejected western modernism, economic imperialism, and representative
institutions. Favored an enlightened anarchy of peasants with a ruler to give voice to
the collective will, Ram Rajya. Sita is idea woman. Spinning is impt ritual.
Returns to India in ’15, surveys the social and political scene, tries our mass
agitations a few years later in Gujarat and Bihar, establishes himself.
First all-india mass agitation in ’19 after montagu-chelmsford and Rowlatt act
(extends wartime ordinances into peacetime…can hold Indians without trial). Got
help of home rule leagues, Khilafat, but no congress (no machinery in place). Largest
since 1857.
’19 agitation was fierce, people reeled under the pressure of social/economic conseq.
of WWI. Muslims were upset about Kanpur Mosque incident (many killed) and ’1418 war for Islamic ummah => Khilafat Muslims led by Mohamed and Shaukat Ali
join Satyagraha Sabha to attack symbols of British authority.













Characterized by unusual unity between Hindu, Muslim, and Sikhs. Punjab—the
least nationalist—was under martial law. In ’19, people in Amritsar looking for a
public fair were shot in Jallianwallah Bagh Massacre, killing hundreds and injuring
over a thousand.
Gandhi’s genius comes from his fusing love of the homeland with the loyalty to
religion. People misinterpret him to be totally out on left field compared to everyone
else at the time. His promotion of the Khilafat movement gave meteoric fame in INC
He supported Khilafat because it was reasonable and moral. Hindu’s had obligation
to support Muslim brothers. The basis of the problem was Lloyd George’s “Broken
Pledge,” to leave Turkey, Arabia, Mesopotamia, and Jeddah alone. Supported Ali’s
call for a mixed commission to decide the needs of the Arabs and Armenians.
Recognized that Palestine was a sticky issue.
Supported 3 Natl cries: Allaho Akbar (not shy from Arabic words), Bande
Mataram/Bharat Mataki Jai, Hindu-Mussalmanki Jai. Devised perfect formula to
harness emotive power of nationalism in linguistic regions and forging religious unity
based on mutual respect (my supporting Khilafat saves the cow from the muslim’s
knife). Swaraj is the only way safety of both faiths is possible.
Gandhi wove negative value of ahimsa with satyagraha. Had a strong emphasis on
discipline/leadership. Advocated violence if there was a choice between it and
cowardice, but India does not have a sword to draw. Offered ahimsa as a political
tool to the Congress.
Captured the leadership of the congress in ’20, outmanovering moderates. Jinnah
tried to bring hindu-muslim unity but deplored mixing religion and politics…he was
shouted down. Mixed symbols of spinning wheel and hand-woven cloth with
crescent moon and Turkish fez.
Not all of his policies went without criticism. Tagore despised boycotting
educational institutions since there was gross “uneducation” in the swadeshi period
All-India Congress Committee endorsed his non-cooperation movement and boycott
of reformed councils. They reorganized the regional congresses by linguistic lines,
modified the constitution: goal is to seek swaraj through legitimate and political
means. Mass program builds political capital out of sweeping populist ferment.
’19-’22 was characterized by labor unrest unrelated to congress. His vision of village
revival was embraced. But congress leadership was afraid that masses would go
ahead of the leadership and redefine swaraj.
Laid special importance to cutting across class, caste, and religious differences in
public policy. Congress considered no revenue and rent payments by Gandhi rejected
the latter since he wanted tenants and landlords to band together.
Gandhi was a god of the people, Mahatma/Maharaj. Overcame contradictions
Boycott was far more effective in ’21 than ’05 => Prince of Wales’ visit was dismal.
Planning to begin no-revenue campaign in Gujarat but called it off because peasants
killed Brits in UP.
Divisions within Congress brought to open after non-cooperation movement ends in
’22. C.R.Das and Motilal Nehru want to wreck raj from within by participating in
councils, break with Congress and form Swaraj Party. Hindu-Muslim unity starts to
break apart with some violence in UP and Punjab. Mohamed Ali calls for federation
of faiths. Das calls for 50-50 allocation of future gov posts and jobs. Punjab





bifurcated into Unionists led by Fazl-i-Hussain and Hindu bigots led by Lajpat Rai (in
favor of majoritarian politics). It’s easy to say that the cause was gandhi’s dangerous
mixing of politics and religion, but in fact religion had successfully excited
nationalists without embittering communities before majoritarian bigotry took over.
Religion was less of a barrier to forming common front than any nationalistic politics
with accommodation of internal differences.
British created the prospects of Indian unity with the all-white Simon Commission
(investigate future constitutional reforms in India). Congress under pressure to come
up with plan, boycotted the commission and had another led by M. Nehru. League
under Jinnah agreed to participate if they agreed to generate a charter safeguarding
muslim rights. “Communalism” takes pejorative connotation. Mohamed Ali’s
position of equally important identities as a muslim and Indian no longer holds.
Leadership dithers over important question of complete independence. M. Nehru’s
report calls for dominion status. Bose and J. Nehru call for complete independence.
Almost passed but Gandhi intervenes in the congress session, because afraid that they
are moving too fast and giving way to the masses. But the masess rioted in ’28, esp.
in Bombay. By the time Gandhi finally accepted purna swaraj, labor militancy and
youth radicalism was repressed. The congress only reluctantly decide to make the
release of these prisoners a demand.
All in all, the british’s attempt to provincialize politics was countered by nationalism
in the 20s. Congress opened up somewhat from the elite to the populous, but still
maintained some bias in favor of the middle and rich classes as well as industrialists.
Not all rich people agreed with him but followed for expediency. Poor looked to him
because they had no one else. Constructive work in villages resumes after Gandhi
calls off mass movement. Swaraj party is successful in Bengal and Center but not in
Punjab. Congress’ refusal to support Das’s 50-50 strategy yields a bifurcation of
politics into loyalism vs. bigotry. British decided to rest their reigime on already fully
provincialized politics (princes/rural elites). ’29 is the passage of the purna swaraj
resolution in congress. Congress is left with the mission of undermining the colonial
structures of domination/collaboration while harnessing various strands of opposition
without being spread too thin.
Chapter 14: Depression Decade, society economics, politics
The depression of the 30s were characterized by changes in social relations and
quickening of political pace. The crisis showed how closely india’s economy was
tied to the world’s, and allowed a renewed context for the agitations of ’22, as well as
the class/caste/religion conflicts. British responds first with repression and then with
diversionary tactics. Gandhian old guard of congress is under fire from radical and
socialist elements. Muslim league is rebuffed by the congress in ’37 and began a
search for an alternative political strategy.
Indian economy experiences great depression in 1) collapse of prices, and 2) rupture
in the circuits of monetary credit. Crisis in agrarian production coincided with
industrial economies of the west. Flow of foreign capital into agrarian sector drops,
prices fall. Liquidity crisis affects prices, creditors pulled out and would not offer
loans, peasants struggled through the depression at lower standard of living,
underproduction means that in the outbreak of WWII, starvation hits.












Depression’s effects in urban areas is more mixed. Unemployment and low wages
were the norm. Flow of capital from rural to urban allowed protection to certain
industries like cement, which did very well. Sugar industry flourishes under
protection. Good times for urban consumption but not for investment.
Gandhian civil disobedience launched in this context. Less bold than purna swaraj:
most of his demands were economic (i.e salt tax, less revenue tax, textile protection).
British did practically nothing. Salt march was the kick-off event, and was successful
By the end of the year, the movement started to polarize: flagging in some and
revolutionary in others. Peasant revolts between Muslim tenants and hindu landlords
was one problem. People who firebombed the central legislature, stole from
chittagong armoury, and assaulted the Calcutta seat of govt. became local heroes.
Gandhi didn’t want to promote this kind of violence so he agreed to negotiate with
the viceroy. The Gandhi-Irwin pact of ’31 achieved almost nothing (3 vagaries, no
release of Bhagat Singh) and angered nationalists but signaled the end of civil
disobedience. He was invited back to the second roundtable discussion to discuss
India’s future constitution but again returned empty-handed. Civil disobedience
began again in ’32. Arrested 120K people, the movement crushed in 2 years.
British tried to divide the Hindus by giving various groups separate electorates.
Ambedkar—leader of the depressed classes—passed the Poona act of 32, agreeing to
drop the lower caste allotment in exchange for more seats.
Gov of India act passes in ’35. Provincial section abolished dyarchy in favor of rule
under elected Indian minsters (keeping emergency powers just in case, holding on to
all vital aspects of sovereignty, finance, and defense). Federal part calls for future
federation with princely state reps counterposing british Indian provinces, such that
nationalists can’t get a majority by construction.
Widely denounced by Nehru, Bose, and Jinnah. Key was to divert attention.
Congress decided to contest provincial elections scheduled for ’37, and won a
MAJOR landslide victory.
Growing competition within the party between left-wing (Nehru and Bose) and
gandhian conservatives. Also, Communist party, Radical Humanists, and Congress
Socialist party had roles to play. Gandhi tried to cut the radical elements out by
giving the leadership to Nehru and Bose. Nehru was a Fabian socialist but decided
not to push it too hard for the sake of expediency in getting rid of the British.
Bose had a more radical social and economic agenda geared towards Indian
conditions but with a militant nationalistic side. Bose defeated gandhi’s candidate for
the head of the party, but they convince him to resign. Forms a forward bloc and tries
to unite the leftist forces. Congress barred him and elder bro from holding office for
6 years.
INC split into conservative and radical factions. Also, muslims opposition was strong
under Jinnah (he was rejected after ’37 election so had to look elsewhere to safeguard
muslim rights).
Viceroy declares India a belligerent in the war, Congress fails to get satisfactory
answers from British and resigns. Gandhi goes for a solo satyagraha campaign, while
militants go all out for independence.








Chapter 15: Natl’ism and Colonialism in WWII, economic and political
confrontation
WWII fromteh Indian natl’st perspective was a war between old and new imperial
powers. Gandhi called for individual satyagraha, lotsa people arrested (bose et al.)
War economy had galloping inflation. Massive defense spending. London’s treasury
was low so they arranged things such that India would pay now and be reimbursed
later. Imports drop, serious shortages occur.
Poor and urban laborers suffered more this time than in the depression of the previous
decade. Devastating famine in Bengal killed over 3.5 million people. There was no
aggregate food-availability decline…it was simply a matter of declines in exchange
entitlements of vulnerable social groups. British colonial policy protected troops and
industrial classes deemed necessary for the war effort; agricultural laborers and
peasants lost food entitlement in the millions. Wages and employment goes down,
prices skyrocket, volatile market forces peoplel to pay for food in cash, famine code
was never invoked to help these people, an untold holocaust of the war.
There was a debt reversal between Britain and the colonial govt. Britain owed 1.3
billion pounds after the war. Intruded into the food market with price controls. The
poor in Bengal starved, Punjabi’s made little profit and complained bitterly.
Nationalists and British state squared off in this environment of economic crisis.
Bose escaped and tried to bring about dissent among Indians in the British army.
Communists turned it into a people’s war against the nationalists, and were blamed
for it. Japan’s defeat of Britain in ’42 emboldened congress leaders to make more
strident demands. Churchill sent an emissary supposedly to prevent the nationalists
from allying with the enemy. We now know that he never intended them to succeed.
Gandhi proposes the quit India movement, which passes through congress in ’42.
Largest uprising since ’57. Led by lower-ranking congress officials since everyone
else was in jail. Urban movement lasted a month before being repressed. Spread to
the countryside, peasants attacked all symbols of British authority. Administration
collapsed in many districts around the country. Revolts were multi-class, liberated
localities set up congress governments. Muslim-majority provinces took no part in
the q-india movement. RSS and right-wing Rajagopalachari stayed aloof.
Industrialists dabbled with the congress but ultimately sold out to British.
Communists played a weak role. British army in top form slaughtered many martyrs
but provided more fodder for congress in future elections.
INA led by bose, who gets surrendered Indian soldiers from Singapore, adds civilian
recruits. Extremely diverse group of people. Attacked the symbol of british
dominance, sought to replace loyalties of Indians fighting under the british. Had a lot
of muslims and Sikhs, as well as women.
INA began from Zafar’s tomb in Burma, fought and lost in north-east India/Burma
but was revitalized in ‘45-’46. Congress and League applauded INA. Trial of three
soldiers from the INA at Red Fort=> supported by high-power legal team from the
congress, were eventually released under pressure. The trials caused mass rioting
from ’45-’46. Mutinies, uprisings, dissent within the british armed forces. All parties
united. British realized that they could not contain them, and moved to discuss the
terms and shape of independence. Soon, mass strife took place over this key issue








Chapter 16: Partition of India, creation of Pakistan
Various interpretations of why India and Pak. broke up. There is the muslim “two
nation” theory and the Indian “tearing two communities apart” theory. The real
reason can be found in the structural contradiction and peculiarities of Indian society
and politics. Need to follow the development of Jinnah/League’s claim to two
nations.
Some revisionists believe that Indian social tradition is completely a british
construction; thereby rejecting the two nation theory. However, they probably
created categories more than they molded identities. Also, it ignores the possibility
that identity building also came as a function of resistance against a common enemy.
Muslim social identities were formed by socio-economic patterns linked to British
rule, not shaped by it. It was thought that the 19th century reform movements and
ideological links with other Muslim nations (Khilafat etc.) facilitate the construction
of a distinct muslim identity but in fact it was quite fragmented by class, region,
doctrine, sect, etc. Religiously informed cultural identity as one of many identities
does not translate directly into communalism.
After 1857 mutiny, British saw Muslims as a significant and distinct community
(prone to religious revivalism), a counterpose to assertive hindu elites. British sought
landed muslims as allies, which people like Sayid Ahmad Khan promoted (via two
nation theory) to give them greater political importance in the eyes of the British.
British were careful about discontent and gave them separate electorates with the ’09
morley-minto reforms.
Muslim politics continued to be shaped by local elements. Until turn of century, no
mention of muslim conception of nationalism. Even conservatives were anti-colonial
rather than anti-national. Nationalist narrative authored by both Hindus and Muslims
offer a multiple visions of nationhood. Muslims got in on the discourse while seeking
accommodation of their differences.
Separate electorates—once offered—could not be withdrawn. The contradiction
between the provincializing of politics and communal politics plagued muslim
politics till the end of colonialism in India. Were made a perpetual minority no
matter what the constitutional arrangement, local politicians used local influence and
had no need for a central party—as opposed to non-muslim parties which had a great
advantage in allying with the INC.
Muslims never followed the lead of a central political organization until the final
decade of rule, when they had to decide on constitutional reforms. They mostly
worked within the limited framework of the local level and found the need to work
cooperatively with members of other communities, but there was no need to work
with a communal group whose identity was defined solely by religion. Following the
Montagu-Chelmsford reforms, separate representation certainly did not guarantee
solidarity (alliances were commonly forged). Khilafat brought politics back to the
central stage, but—ironically—they ended up allying themselves with Gandhi.
Muslim league dies in the 20s.
In the early 30s, there was no central voice for the muslims. ’16 Lucknow CongressLeague agreement gave weighted representation for minorities but no representation
by population, which angered many. Lajpat Rai warned that the price for separate









electorates is partition (of Punjab and probably Bengal)—muslims didn’t like this.
The Congress’ natl’sm wanted equal citizenship without equal representation.
Muslims were anxious to advance regional interests at the cost of communal interests.
Unionists had the most weight in the constitutional dialogue. With communal award
of ’32 and act of ’35, Muslims in Punjab and Bengal retained their separate
electorates and got more seats than other communities. They could also electorally
capitalize on the newly created provinces of Sind and NWFP, but minority muslims
lost protection on the councils from British officials.
Some muslim politicians turn to Jinnah, who had disappeared to London—a
disappointed congressman—only to return to head the league in ’34. Their goal was
to de-provincialize muslim politics: upon getting majority province support, minority
provinces would have every incentive to join in to have their central grievances
resolved. But there was no urgency to join the league’s bandwagon.
In the ’36-’37 elections, Jinnah tried to get support from the majority provinces and
strike a deal with congress but failed to do both. Congress won a landslide and the
league won 4.4%. Provincial politicians did not care for a nat’l party with no track
record. Had a hand in the coalition govt. of Bengal with the KPP but was rejected by
the north-west provinces. Since those were the provinces actually agitating against
the congress hindu-raj, the league needed to get in on the action ASAP.
League got support in regions where muslims were outnumbered. But all in all, the
congress’ overwhelming victory convinced them to disregard the league entirely in
the formation of provincial government.
League had to adopt all muslim causes and play a fine power balance with the
provincial parties to get support and then leverage with Congress.
In 20s and 30s, muslim opposition against the congress hardens. Unionist and KPP
agree to support League at the center. They preferred a weak center and stong
provinces as opposed to the federation arrangement of the ’35 act. Even with
weighted representation, they would always remain a minority/have no power in a
new India.
The way out of this quandary was to invoke Sayid Ahmad Khan’s point that of two
nations. Iqbal was a leading supporter of the idea of creating a separate state in the
Northwest from Punjab, NWFP, Sind, and Baluchistan. Ali invents the word Pakistan
as a confederation of states from here to the Bosphorus. Idea of mass movement of
peoples was not palatable so people thought of alternatives.
Most were predicated on the idea that muslims were a nation and not a minority.
With the outbreak of war in Europe, congress stated its conditions for war, claiming
to speak for all of India. League had to come up with a counter demand—combining
the requirements of the majority and minority muslims—to contest the congress.
Rising to this challenge, the league declared in ’40 the need for independent muslim
states in the northwest and east on the grounds that they were a separate nation; they
insisted that their nationalistic vision was just as valid as the congress’. While
vanquished just 3 years earlier, they had increasing muslim discontent on their side.
The resolution had holes: no mention of a strong/weak center of Muslim/Hindus, nor
of any partition or Pakistan; it seemed to be merely an amorphous declaration of
sentiments rather than a concrete plan of action. The crux was that all negotiations on
this issue had to be reconsidered in light of this fact, that the muslims were a separate












nation. The league, however, did have a considered view that these majority
provinces be sovereign and autonomous states.
The ambiguity was intentional to avoid foreclosing other possibilities. There were
accounts where—while the new muslim nation would have significant non-muslims
in it—both constitutions would have protections of minorities.
The initial demand was understood to be consistent with separate nations welded
together into an Indian confederation with common defense etc. The idea was in
power-sharing. Jinnah himself seemed satisfied with this interpretation.
Jinnah argued that the transfer of power had to include a dissolution of the center—
the artifact of British colonialism. Once created, Pakistan could decide whether to
enter the confederation or simply make treaties, but either way the first step was
getting Pakistan to be conceded by the British and Congress.
Jinnah maintained that Punjab and Bengal would maintain their borders with large
non-muslim minorities. Reciprocal protection of minorities would be in place.
Equitable share of power at the center.
Jinnah had a tough balancing act, trying to rouse a base muslim population mostly
found in hindu-dominated provinces. Can’t rouse the muslim populace without
angering landed ashraf classes. Strategy was to build as many bridges as possible
with big-wigs.
Jinnah often had scorn for mullah who touted islam openly but came to resort to
religion at the end b/c this was only way to mobilize a politically divided community.
The idea for Pakistan became greatly popular among most muslims. Yet popularity
did not necessarily yield a strong enough politic for its achievement. Jinnah needed
to get support from the majority province politicians and negotiate with the nonmuslims in these two provinces.
Cripps Mission of ’42 offered provinces and not communities the opportunity to opt
out of the newly forming Indian union, which demonstrated the contradiction in
Jinnah’s demand. But Cripps failed and muslim politicians chose to alienate nonmuslims rather than break ranks with the league. “Rajaji” offered Jinnah a Pakistan
composed of the muslim majority districts of Punjab and Bengal, leaving the
challenge of negotiation with India defense etc. But Jinnah knew this would lead to a
power imbalance and vetoed the “moth-eaten Pakistan.”
Cripps and Rajaji exposed the central problem: Pakistan could entail a partition of
provinces. Jinnah lost all offices except for Sind and negotiations with Congress
about selecting members of the viceroy’s executive council failed.
In ’45-’46 elections, Jinnah wins all muslim seats and 75% of vote. People electrified
by the cry for Pakistan, no specific agenda in place. Had been won by local leaders
with alliances to league. But there are still problems…local Sikhs and Hindus upset.
Cabinet mission plan offered Jinnah a real consideration: undivided India with weak
center or divided with partitioned provinces. Jinnah rejected a sovereign pak in ’46,
moving towards 3 tiered gov. Jinnah soon realized that the mission’s proposal would
not hold (prompted by Nehru’s statement as prez of INC).
League desperately calls for “direct action day”. Violence careens out of control
around the country, esp in Calcutta. Appted minister from congress and league are at
odds with each other in the interim govt.









Riots everywhere…British decide to officially leave by summer ’48. Hindu
Mahasabha demands partition of Punjab and Bengal…Nehru approves. Moutbatten
intends to get out of India as fast as possible with the least damage to British interests.
Nehru and Patel are ready to take power at the center at the cost of partitioning India.
Sharat Bose reaches a compromise with League about a unified and independent
Bengal that had Gandhi’s approval too…but this was rejected by Nehru/Patel.
Mountbatten makes is plan for partition privy to Nehru and Jinnah in summer ’47.
Jinnah seems to faulter on whether or not he will agree to the proposal but
Mountbatten closes the deal. Legislators of the partitioned provinces need to vote for
partition, and decide whether or not to join existent constituent assembly or ‘Pak’
constituent assembly.
It turns out that the majority of legislators in both provinces actually rejected partition
but the east-Punjab and west-Bengal reps had to vote under the Congress command.
Jinnah was presented with the choice of either an undivided India with no guarantee
of muslim share of power or a carved-out Pakistan. If jinnah had been more
confident of his following in the muslim provinces, he might have opted for the
former and used the weight of the provinces to secure rights in majority and minority
provinces. This failed: jinnah feared his own followers, mistrusted the congress highcommand, and Mountbatten’s decision to move up the date to ’47. He had no choice
but to accept that which he rejected in ’44 and ’46.
Congress agreed to partition on the condition that it would be the final negotiation on
the matter. The Congress version of the story was that partition entailed certain areas
“opting out” of the union of India as opposed to the division of India into Pakistan
and Hindustan. British accepted this version, which seeming destroyed Jinnah’s two
nation theory. This seceding view seemed to have the underlying stipulation that
muslim areas would return to the union of India if it failed. Religion was insufficient
to bring the muslim provinces solidly behind the All-india platform; Jinnah had to
settle for a truncated pak. Contradictory logic of British’s provincial politics vs.
communal electorates means that the particularisms of the Muslim provinces is the
most important driving force here. Also, congress was obstinate about conceding
power at the center.
Partition was accompanied by slaughter of hundreds of thousands as they cross state
lines.
Chapter 17: 1947. Memories and Meanings
Millions of people herded across lines, hundreds of thousands killed, land divided
across religious lines when never done so before, 2 wars over Kashmir and a third
with Bangladesh. Rise of hindu majoritarian parties and resurgence of hindu-muslim
violence in the north-west of the country. Recurrence of center-region problems. All
problems seem to stem from the troubled legacy of ’47.
This part of south asian history has been extremely controversial. Standard
explanation comes from British theory of divide and rule as well as muslim two
nation theory. Both are inadequate. Statist historians are wrong.
After partition, 60 mill muslims in Pak (largest muslim state in world, then) and 40
mill in India (largest non-muslim state in world). Suggests that they were not a
homogenous community (regional and local loyalties, language, occupation, socio-








economics). Peacefully coexisted with other religions through most of early history.
Seems odd that people would create a state under the assumption that islam was the
most important impulse of identity.
Jinnah, the father of the nation, was a protagonist of hindu-muslim unity and stood for
a joint congress-league program. Jinnah is praised and blamed for the birth of Pak.
But the whole time, both he and the rest of the league were intentionally ambiguous
about what the Pakistan claim was…left it to the populous’ imagination. His appeal
to religion was a political tactic, not an ideology.
Religion was never traditionally used for political ideology. Local/regional politics
didn’t develop in the framework of the league but rather the other way around.
Religion was used to paper over cracks within the Muslim community.
Many flaws in Jinnah’s strategy. He underestimated Britain’s anxiety to relinquish
power, thought congress would bend over backward to avoid partition (in
concordance with Gandhi’s wishes), and overestimated his control over majority
province politicians. Gandhi had little control over Congress’ Nehru and Patel.
For Jinnah, Pakistan was the way to win equal power for Muslims at the center.
Jinnah looked for power at the all-india level. His politics was a contradiction in
itself; his nationalism was more inline with congressmen than leaguers, he was a
distant man who tried to pander to the people, a secular man who pandered to
religion, a constitutionalist who threatened agitation, and a center-oriented nationalist
who resulted in a partitioned India. Ironically, he never intended islam to play much
of a role in the actual governance of the state. People today don’t know this…they
believe him to be the man who gave expression to the vision of an Islamic state, the
ultimate victory of islam in the subcontinent.
There is a gap between meanings and memories in both Pak and India. Nehru’s
unitary vision of the nation ignores the wealth of narratives that went into the making
of the nation. Gandhi’s utopia is an example. There are many models which have
variations on the theme of decentered democracy; it’s all to easy to buy into the
conflation of nation and state when neither existed until ’47.
In the retroactive narrative on nationalist past, only congress-muslims were
nationalist, makes it seem like communal divide was solved by partition, nehruvian
brush ignores political and linguistic diversity in the aftermath, makes it seem like
independence was won through only gandhian non-violence (illegitimating the
revolutionaries who fought for freedom and ignoring the death accompanying
partition). Indian Minority muslims blame jinnah for leaving them behind while
majority members blame him for destroying the unity. Babri Masjid demolition
shows that the meaning had been lost on both Indians and Pakistanis.
Rise of communalism resurfaces many of the memories of ’47. People don’t
understand why India accepted dominion status or Pakistan, but this was the only way
that India could claim the unitary center at Delhi and control ¾ of the country by
pulling the princely states in. This required sacrificing unity and full independence.
Centralized power in India has not helped the poor despite a professed ideology to the
contrary. Neither Gandhi nor Nehru’s vision of eradicating the poverty,
discrimination, and exploitation which the colonialists fail to address. Accentuation
of center-state relations, threats to secular ideology, class, caste, communal conflicts,
and military disputes with Pak are all legacies of ’47.










British suffered little to none after ’47. There was some nostalgia. Mountbatten
patting himself on the back for a job well done—when in fact it was a administrative
and human disaster—is an admission of the colonial master’s dereliction of duty at
the moment of greatest crisis.
Subcontinent has never recovered from the tragedy of immediate post-partition
(killings on trains, etc). Some writers and artists have done a good job bringing the
human tragedies to light but others have failed to give a full accounting of the tragedy
and trivialized it in the process.
Need to be careful to equally represent and examine the state as well as the
community in the context of violence. People who emphasize one or the other are
obfuscating the field of study. Implicating entire communities presents a distorted
picture of what happened in ’47. Evidence shows that most didn’t participate in
violence against religious opposites and actually protected victims. Can’t treate
groups as undifferentiated blocks. This approach will restore our understanding of
subaltern groups, women, and others.
Chapter 18: Post-Colonial South Asia from ’47 to ‘71
It is important to breach the divide between pre and post ’47, as well as the spatial
divide between pak and India. Millennia of culture and history is more powerful than
any political border.
The important forces of centralism/regionalism, nationalism, religious assertion
(communitarian and sectarian) continue to mold the subcontinent after independence.
Congress claimed the triumph of centralism and nationalism but pak demonstrates the
partial success of regionalism and religious communitarianism. It might be tempting
to attribute the congress’ success in establishing a relatively stable democracy to it’s
secular nationalism and centralism.
Yet this seems premature. India has experienced significant pressure from regional
and communitarian groups, probably just as due to it’s secularism and democraticism
as pakistan’s authoritarianism. Is this just an endemic issue of periodic shifts between
center and region?
Borders in the region have always been extremely permeable. Pak had the ignominy
of a region successfully breaking away in ’71 (Bangladesh). India and Pak currently
suffer tensions in Kashmir, Punjab, Assam, and the Sind.
The question is why India has only done marginally better than Pak in holding back
regional dissonance. To answer this, we need to strip ourselves of all ideational selfprojections and all biases we may have for one “ism” over another.
The way India was partition precluded it from becoming two successor states. India
inherited the centralist structure, the personality, even the name. Pak was given the
role of seceding from the center. It had to build a center from scratch, control
territories thousands of miles apart through unfriendly territory, etc.
Explanations of how India ended up with a parliamentary democracy privilege the
congress at the expense of other important institutions. While the congress was a key
player, it owes a lot to the inherited police, military, and civil bureaucracy. There is
still much bureaucratic authoritarianism in India. Formal democracy (elections etc.)
had to be frequently supplemented with authoritarian methods.











With help of existing structures in place, congress was able to setup a westministerstyle parliamentary democracy. Having regular elections and widening the electoral
base has helped, but political privilege has prevented serious socio-economic change.
Nevertheless, on balance, parliamentary democracy has led to upward mobility in the
populous. Backward/scheduled castes have been a serious impact on local politics
and challenged the congress to reform. Mobilizing electoral support around symbols
like the Babri Masjid have been tested by the BJP, to great resistance by other parties.
Question is whether or not it’s alright to democratically dilute secularism.
Changes in center-region dialectic have led to shift in balance between democratic
and authoritarian tendencies. One way to measure progress is formal (regular
elections) vs. substantive (equitable socio-economic development) democracy.
The roots of center-region problems in south asia can be tied to historical
circumstances more than inherent diversities of culture. Both needed to setup strong
central governments (with a focus on unity) after the trauma of partition. In pak, fear
of survival was even greater with it’s ill-defined Islamic ideology.
Both India and Pak look federal in form but are actually unitary: the chief minister
and his cabinet can be dismissed by the center in a move known as “president’s rule.”
It is commonly thought the success of formal democracy in the region is due to the
INC, but it is likely due more to the inheritance of the unitary structure. ICS => IAS.
The fact that disarray within Congress was a little less than that of the league
accounts for much of the differences in success between authoritarianism and
democracy (it’s the links forged by political parties with bureaucracy)
Nehru shifted center-state relations towards the executive, despite some
accommodations he made with local party bosses. Both Congress and League were
prone to personality cults of local leaders. Deinstitutionalization of congress was
reflected by broadening of political base by newly mobilized social groups. Change
in balance of power is reflected with relationship with civil bureaucracy. Nehru used
the bureaucracy significantly to buttress the center, and this gave the it more
discretionary power in policy implementation.
Scholars are now questioning Nehru’s achievements in placing India on a democratic
path. His opposition of linguistic reorganization is just one example. Potti Sriramalu
starved to death in ’52 trying to create a telegu-speaking province. Gujarati
opposition to the division of the Bombay Province was another road block. Akali
Dal—the premier Sikh party in Punjab—was demanding a linguistic state for Punjabspeakers…was not conceded until Indira Gandhi.
DMK in Tamil Nadu was the most serious sessionist challenge, a counterpose to the
Hindi-speaking north. Completion of linguisitic reorganization in the 50s-60s was
insufficient to alleviate center-region tensions, erupting again in the 80s.
Problems in Kashmir can be traced to Nehru’s early years. Hindu Maharaja with
Muslim-majority populace signs an accession agreement with India after NWFP
tribals attack. Nehru turns it over to the UN which divides the province 2/3 Indian
and 1/3 Pakistani. Administration was under the popular Sheikh Abdullah until he
was arrested in ’53. Slowly the provinces were brought under the center’s control as
they assign charge to administrators willing to do Delhi’s bidding.
Nehru used carrot-stick approach with other congressmen effectively to lead the party
to electoral victory in 3 successive elections despite organizational disintegration








unmended by Nehru. His personal charisma carried him through with the masses and
the fat cats. His economic policies tried to build industry but ended up not helping to
alleviate basic social problems like malnutrition, poverty and disease.
N’s death plunged the party into state party bossism. Shastri is his successor but only
shortly before he dies. Congress is starting to break apart from the inside because
there have been no organizational reforms. State bosses apply pressure so Shastri
turns to the higher civil services to forestall a takeover.
State boss influence ended when they failed to deliver at the polls of 67. Partnership
with civil bureaucracy was no longer sufficient to maintain power. Indira Gandhi
chosen as the new head, very cunning woman who surrounds herself with skilled
bureaucrats. Declares ’69 a populist socio-economic program. Tried to appease to
high caste landed elites and subordinate classes across regional arenas. Her rally call
“eliminate poverty” delivered at the polls in ’71 and ’72.
’71 general elections coincided with first general election in Pak of ’70 with military
crackdown (declared by Z. Bhutto leading to Bangladesh’s successful secession) =>
shatters the myth that the basis for Pak was Islam. Since then. central government
worked on evolving a center capable of keeping the nation together. Question: why
did Pak fall off the democratic track? It’s not Jinnah’s early death or the League’s
weakness. Non-elected institutions were also very weak as well. Answer: having to
build a center from scratch as well as the war with India over Kashmir within months
of independence created the conditions for bureaucratic/military dominance.
Division of the army of undivided India was still incomplete. Central leadership was
in no position to fight the war but ended up skewing the relationship between elected
and non-elected institutions. Revenue extraction and administrative consolidation
becomes the primary goal, not the construction of a system capable of reflecting
linguistic and cultural diversity.
Politicians were edged out of the decision-making process and bureaucratic
authoritarianism took hold. This tilted the regional balance of power in favor of
Punjabis in the civil administration against non-punjabis. Conflict between
administrators and politicians has defined the overt military and covert democratic
authoritarianism in the region.
The culture of military coups—for example, the ’58 coup when the military moved
with the president to take control—begins with assassination of first prime minister,
Liaquat Ali Khan. He was from a minority province and thus disliked by Punjabi
federal bureaucracy as well as the Bengali majority, whose dominance he tried to
forestall by delaying the drafting of the constitution.
State functionaries were afraid of Bengali dominance. This internal battle for
supremacy coupled with the competition from India and international pressure to
capitalism put the autonomy of the political process on hold. The only way to exert
power from the center was to distort the political process => “power vacuum”
explanation of the failure of parliamentary democracy doesn’t hold. Must distinguish
between military dominance and military intervention.
It was much easier to tinker with the political process than twist it to fit. Pak
maintained the façade of a parli democracy to give it ultimate flexibility for the
military and bureaucracy to control. They consolidated state authority by dispensing
the political process.




Pak was a military and bureaucratic-controlled state until ’71. Military reigime of
Ayub Khan is characterized by differential patronage to select segments of society, so
that he could maintain dominance with the least effort. These left-out groups
engineered his downfall and dissented against his successor, Yahya Khan. Bengali’s
resented urdu as the national language, Ayub recognized it in the constitution but the
center-region damage was already done. Developments in the 60s highlight the limits
of state consolidation under military/bureaucracy in societies with systematic
depoliticization.
Ayub’s basic democracies order of ’59 stretched scope of bureaucratic control into
politics but he marginalized the threats: intelligentsia and industrial labor. Took
Washington’s advice and strove for growth rather than redistribution. Widening
disparities took its toll.
Legacy of Punjabi Army domination has frustrated attempts to return to democracy.
Yahya Khan agreed to hold first nation election with universal adult franchise but
would not allow the people to eliminate any of the structure the bureaucracy and
military had worked so hard to build—he had absolute power to veto anything he
disliked.
Bengalis formed the majority but were poorly represented in the two institutions with
power: military and bureaucracy. Also, the cultural dimension (urdu as a national
language) imposed further tensions. Exclusionary politics and gross inequities led to
Awami League’s fight for provincial autonomy. Rahman wins the general elections
but military crackdown in ’71 starts a war with India joining in and freeing
Bangladesh.
Chapter 19: Post-Colonial South Asia, Socio-economics, State and politics, ’71-‘03
 70s are a populist era. Indira Gandhi was willing to limit central mobility in
broadening the base of support to the end of staying in power. She used a mix of
formal democracy and covert authoritarianism unlike what her father had used. More
democracy = reorganizing congress but also strengthening regional leaders at the cost
of the center. Success at regional level based on populist mobilization gave local
politicians the means to attack the center. Gandhi reacted by eliminating any
intraparty democracy and appointed all of her own loyalists. Structural contradiction
between exec power at the center and resilience of casts as well as the regional
problems arising from populism.
 Emergency of ’75-’77 was the attempt to ward off regional challenges. Overt
authoritarianism worked in the short run but could not sustain opposition charges of
illegitimacy. Mounting grievances from all sides resulted in her rejection in the ’77
elections.
 Janata party—the loose conglomerate united in opposition to her policies—took
power but soon fell to its own structural contradictions. Gandhi came back in
Karnataka but dropped the local candidate as soon as it was clear that the subordinate
classes and minorities got tired of the janata’s agrarian plan and socio-economically
powerful support base. Gandhi came back determined to fight regional dissidence.
Punjab, Assam, and Kashmir were all problems of the politics of a congressdominated center. Substitution of populism with religious majoritarianism was key.







Pitting communalism against regionalism was a well-played card—we see it in the
politics of partition, Telegu politics in the 80s, and in Punjabi Politics vis-à-vis the
Akali Dal—seeking a Punjabi-speaking linguistic state. Claimed sovereign
nationhood (though not necessarily state-hood) for the Sikhs, more radical elements
got weapons and launched a violenc campaign for the sikh homeland Khalistan.
Assault on Golden Temple, assassination, and riots followed.
Rajiv Gandhi won elections with the Hindu card after mother’s death (rode on the
sympathy wave). He opened the doors to Ayodhya mosque and railroaded a
controversial conservative muslim women’s bill through congress (Shah Bano). India
gets involved with another country’s federal dilemma without having resolved local
problems. Tamil minority of Sri Lanka were targeted in ’83 riots by Sinhalese.
Tamil Tigers have been fighting for a sovereign tamil state ever since. India gets
involved but finds that not all Tamils agree and some fight the Indian army.
Rajiv loses 1 state election after another, corruption scandals, does nothing to
negotiate disputed terr. Release of imprisoned Abdullah followed by rigged elections
cuts off Kashmiri relationship with India. ’89 natl elections, BJP did well on the
issue of a hindu state, but Janata Dal stole the populist thunder. Forms coalition gov.
with VP Singh at the top. Reaches out to a wider group and seemed better equipped
to reorder priorities of India’s political economy of development. In the end, J. Dal
had to work within the established parameters of compromise between formal
democracy and covert authoritarianism.
Rise of Hindu majoritarian politics since the 80s in India must be placed in the
context of region challenging center. Secularism and Socialism lost credibility and
congress turned to religious majoritarianism to convey regional threats, opening the
doors to more ideologically committed forces: BJP, RSS, VHP. It was initially
deployed against the Sikhs in the 80s but became increasingly anti-muslim. Ayodhya
Temple-mosque controversy becomes central.
VHP demanded that the Babri Madjid Mosque be replaced by a temple, congress does
nothing to stop this, ’89: holy bricks are transported. Singh’s decision to implement
the recommendations of the Mandal commission (reserve jobs at center for backward
castes) seems to divide the hindu community by castes . BJPs leader Advani takes a
chariot journey to arrive at the site and build the temple, thereby challenging the
ideological foundations of the Indian state (secularism). Tore down mosque in ’92,
leading to some of the worst attacks on the Muslim community in many parts of
India.
Although this damaged the secular façade of the Indian state, religious communalism
of the BJP variety is NOT NECESSARILY the binary opposite of secular
nationalism. Adherents of the centralized post-colonial nation-state have offered both
ideologies as justification. HIndutva’s promise to shore up the central state authority
is probably bogus. The real key to move forward is to renegotiate the powers of the
center with the varied constituent units. An invariant majoritarian position might
further fragment the country’s politics.
The return of congress to power in ’91 allows Narasimha Rao to tackle the “permits,
licences and subsidy raj,” which came out into the open after the balance of payments
crisis leading to an IMF loan in ‘91. By removing the barriers to entry in industry,
economic development continued. However, they moved slowly to rectify health and









education. Sen argues for moving “beyond liberalization” and into expanding social
opportunities.
Further decline of the congress in the general election of ’98-’99 created the
conditions for BJP coalitions governments at the center. Vajpayee, the moderate face
of the BJP, was accepted as the head once the Ayodhya issue, Article 370, and a
uniform civil code were placed aside. Vajpayee promised to form coalition
governments even with a majority because this is the democratic way—although this
was an empty promise.
Sonia Gandhi led the congress to the worst showing in ’99. lost many seats in the
Lok Sabha. Ruling coalition was formed by Tamil Desam, DMK, etc. Opposition
had regional parties with lower bases of support as well
General elections of ’99 dented the pretensions of the congress and BJP. A string of
defeats led the BJP to fall back on its Hindutva line. Victory in Gujarat upon the
mass killings of thousands of muslims brings to light the obvious fact that BJP—at
the end of the day—is just a coalition of northern and western interests and is not
equipped to handle myriad class contradictions.
In 5 years of a BJP government, relations with Pakistan have been nuts. Nuclear tests
on both sides, followed by calls for restraint and brinkmanship in Kargil. Agra
summit in ’01 gives both sides hope that a reasonable agreement can be reached.
Unprecedented media hype. Terrorist attack on parliament diverted resources again
away from social opportunities and towards military strategic objectives. By ’03, V.
is taking steps to renew peace with P.
While India’s spoils system and bureaucratic corruption/inefficiency has been bad for
India, Pak’s military rule (leading to the illegal sales of drugs and arms) has been
much worse. 40 years of autocracy has done little for the economy despite higher
economic growth numbers. Concentration of wealth in the 20 families or so who
control the dice. Formal Democracy is a necessary but by no means sufficient
condition for development with social justice.
After ’71, both Pak and Bangladesh had brief periods of parli democracy followed by
longer periods of military-influenced rule. Bhutto’s election seemed to bode well for
the state, but he maintained much of the autocratic techniques used in Ayub’s
government. Watered down populism and rewarded loyalists to the PPP. Had no
respect for civil liberties.
Bhutto allows the military to go all out against an uprising in Baluchistan. No
progress was made to redefine center-region relations. Called elections in ’77 to
appease mounting resentments, and won but was accused of rigging it. No PPP
organization to save him from ousting by the opposition.
Ul-Haq assumed control, had the support of the elite classes who disliked Bhutto,
won legitimacy by squelching the corruption of Bhutto’s govt. Took the side of
Islamic parties in Pak and vowed to bring religiousity back to the center. Passed
wildly anti-women acts. Haq strengthened his hold by drawing defense more closely
into the day-to-day running of the state. Beneficiaries of his patronage have been
influential in modern politics.
Rewards and patronage under the haq reigime created an even bigger stake for the
military in the existing structures of the state. Zia uses the Islamic notion of the
“advisory council” to conflate representation with selection. Finally gave into







elections in ’85, confident that it could face the electorate. Passage of 8th amendment
was highly controversial
8th amendment allows president (military) to dismiss elected prime minister and
government without consultation of anyone. Has been used 5 times since ’85 to oust
legitimately elected governments.
Zia dies in ’88, fiscal crisis is available to everyone and it is horrendous. Sindhis
revolt against the Punjabi domination of government. Violence between linguistic
communities.
Following decades showed B. Bhutto (PPP, she also went to Harvard) leading on and
off with Nawaz Sharif (P. Muslim league) of the Punjab (chief minster). Dismissals
of PM’s led to a lot of instability in the region. Highly polarized and pulverized
political arena.
8th amendment was finally scrapped by Sharif after winning huge victory in ’97.
After sacking Musharraf, he is deposed. M. promises to hold free elections but never
does. Anoints himself President and initiates reforms. Support for war on Terror
strengthens his domestic position. Declared himself president till ’07. Has met
opposition from Bhutto’s PPP and a 6-party religious opposition (he proclaimed that
Pak would become a moderate member of the international community, angering
them)
Populism has been even shorter in Bangladesh. Rahman was released and becomes
first pres from Awami League. Hunger and war posed problems. He tinkered with
authoritarianism, assassinated in ’75 by CIA. Turns to over autocracy under general
Ziaur Rahman, performs a kind of socio-political engineering like Ayub and Haq.
Assassinated and succeeded by another military dictator, who soon gave it over to
democracy.
Military autocracy cannot be brought to an end by mere elections. Formal
Democracy has to overcome a wall of structural obstacles, let alone substantive
democracy.
All three nations have a common set of social and economic problems. Literacy, life
expectancy, ratio of women to men, state of primary education. All have far to go to
rectify imbalances along religion, community, class, and gender. Need to break the
colonial mold.