The Anarchy: Ridding Colonialism

The British Raj was one of the most powerful empires this world has ever seen, and at a point in our history, the ruler (direct or indirect) of half the world.

The power associated with the Crown has inspired many period dramas, but the extent to which this island dominated modern history can never fully be captured in any form of media. It is only because the extent of their rule could never fit in a season of 45-minute episodes without running for an incredibly long time.

In any body’s mind, the first word associated with ‘colonialism’ has to be India – regardless of you being Indian, British, or American. Mention the British Raj, and you think of India – not the Ottoman Empire (where the British drew lines on a map defining the countries we know today), not the Americas or even South East Asia. Funnily enough, when asked about military parades, British comedian John Oliver chose to joke about British parades in India – a subconscious association made during an interview! Furthermore, if you ask anyone the first thing they associate with Indian history, there is a high chance it will be British rule. The history of India is, in fact, fascinating – having one of the oldest human civilizations to having some of the most complex cultures, one can fall short of certain periods even when pursuing a college degree mastering in this region. But why is it that the British are the main focus for India? It can’t just be the fact that it was just 70 years ago (relative to other events), can it? It has to be another reason! For me to accept this period of history, there has to be another reason.

It is the impact that these 200 years had. Compared to the 4000 years of Indian culture and history to talk about, these 200 years mess up that ratio! Consider the same demographic of people! No trace of democracy whatsoever – pure monarchs were ruling over a majority, if not the entire, of India, whether it was the Mauryas, Mughals, or the Crown. What made it different?

In search of answers, I picked up The Anarchy, written by renowned historian William Dalrymple, which happened to be on the school reading list. As a prelude to my assessment of its contents, the book focuses on the events that led the British to India, the circumstances that led to total domination, and the complete submission of the Indian spirit. Not an easy read in any way, this story-like book covers events till the 1820s – a great authorial choice in my opinion, as it gives the events of 1750 – 1800 the attention it deserves, without events like the First War of Independence diluting that content.

The book sheds light on infamous characters like Robert Clive and Uncle Mir Jafar and the EIC’s internal politics (which was a significant factor in the events we know about). Although the central theme of the book, and the way it was marketed, was to show the economic implications of the rise of big companies, as a review of the influence of the modern multinational corporations, I only found this in the beginning and end of the book, and a few scattered paragraphs at the end of chapters. By comparing the EIC to oppressive companies like ExxonMobil, it aims to show parallels and warn us about what is to come. It felt forced, almost as if it were included by publishers and not the author himself – much like some of my essays where I often forget to include a point and then can’t seem to weave into context naturally (or, more appropriately, adding idioms to a Hindi essay). As a reader, I would have accepted another theme or no theme at all, as (justifiably) it was a difficult one to link. But the writing, appropriate use of sources, and personal opinions have filled in for that, allowing this review to be positive overall. However, I could be biased primarily because my history-kid brain went into overdrive when it saw familiar names in the book, which is the energy you would see throughout my piece.

I went into this book with the knowledge that every Indian national curriculum student has about the British and the freedom struggle. Growing up with curricula that allowed for only two lines about the Battles of Plassey and Buxar, I had long since been waiting to fill those gaps in my mental timeline with accurate depictions of those events. Having started the book with no idea how the 300 pages were going to play out, to regretting picking this book because it seemed heavily invested in economics in the beginning, and even put it down when my conditioned information-compartmentalizing brain started treating it like a textbook, I ended up thoroughly enjoying the book. It did not suddenly start with the British in India but showed the signing of the EIC Charter and the establishment of the first share-holder based commercial expedition of the world. It laid the scene with the Crown wanting to expand the fiscal-military structure of governance, which had been very useful in the Americas. This structure, which allows for private corporations to establish monopolies over certain goods’ trade, laid the EIC’s foundation as being the sole trader in exotic substances from the East for His Majesty. This monopolization gave the EIC the ‘ego’ boost it needed to become so large that the Crown was reliant on revenue from a private company to be functional and even participated in the first-ever government bailout of a company.

Looking at Indian history as presented in the book – through both British and Indian eyes – we can acknowledge everything that happened rationally. As any Indian (even now), I am thoroughly displeased with British colonialism, but this book brings out the ugly truth in an implicit way. It simply outlines that the divisive nature of Indian culture and society during the British expansion is the sole reason for their conquest in India! Every great battle that we hear of clearly shows the British against a prince and is often because of ‘restrictive’ trade laws or other policies that are not in favor of the British. We know this and often study pages of causes and consequences of this. But what textbooks often omit is that the British were aided by other Indian princes and kings trying to expand their territory. By contributing their troops and swearing allegiance to the foreigners, what seemed like a short term fix turned out to be an oppressive rule. The most common example has to be Siraj ud-Daula being betrayed by Mir Jafar and his loss at the Battle of Plassey, which we now know laid the EIC’s foundation as a governing body. The book explores other such relationships and agreements, namely with the Marathas and The Mughals, against external forces from Central Asia and internal threats in the Delhi capital. Each Indian ruler that helped the British against a ‘common enemy’ holds as much blame as the firangs.

An analysis of this information brought me to a particular conclusion to the question I posed before – the reason for the British dominating Indian history is the divisive nature of society at the time. Under Akbar the Great, we saw a united Mughal empire. For the first time in history did the Mughals and Rajputs get along, as with the South Indian kings and the Muslim emperor. But the British’s divide and rule policy, which worked marvels in India, oddly brought the nation closer together. The only thing that unites Indians now, regardless of their political beliefs, is the common goal of proving to the world they are not suffering the effects of colonialism and want to take on their oppressors any day. I am guilty of it! When I hear the national anthem or see the tri-colour, the patriotism is from the brotherhood that the British created – the brotherhood that ultimately destroyed them. People have been asked to justify British rule in India, i.e., what this country has gained. Most people would talk about the materialistic developments the British contributed to – the railway, communications, or English education. The love I feel for every Indian has to have stemmed from this common struggle – I look over to a person, and I feel an instant connection with the thoughts that may be our great grandparents struggled alongside each other.

Now that we have established why British history trumps other aspects of India and actually has had a crucial role in deciding what India is like today, I want to explore why colonialism existed in the first place. Apart from the economic drive, the supposed racial superiority was an essential factor in shaping the British invasion. Racism has never been uncommon and is a social problem that has led to ripple effects worldwide. But I have always wondered – why, and how did it start?

While reading the Anarchy, I wanted to learn more about the first encounter between natives and a white man, to see if this racial superiority originated instantly. I understand it’s a complex social issue that needs more time to develop, but I always wondered if something like this could happen. The first recorded court meeting was between Sir Thomas Roe and Emperor Jahangir, and it could not have been any more the opposite of what ensued. In the minority here, the British man was treated like any other courtier, waiting in line with several others for an audience with the king. Contrast that to years down the line, with Robert Clive and his men marching across Bengal, looting and establishing their ‘capital’ in Calcutta – treating Indians as secondary citizens in their own country. Once they started, how could they ever stop? Through pictures, quoted text, and excerpts from the personal diaries of the people mentioned above, The Anarchy provides a vivid description of what India was becoming, enslaved under the yoke of the white man.

With Clive and the EIC fortifying their settlements, shipping guns and gunpowder over the oceans, we see the first cause of racism. Evolutionary human beings have always preferred collectives and groups over individualism. These are common societal values, but I believe the love for one’s collective makes one increasingly radical to do ‘whatever it takes’ to protect the community’s interests: this is precisely how nationalism, a pure sentiment, became radical nationalism. That love for your group made the group a ‘priority,’ and its advancement came at the cost of other groups: in a nutshell, colonialism and imperialism. This fear conditioning of other groups, in general, led to the rise of racism in India. It was the reason the import of ammunition became the importation of a private army. In the Anarchy, we see vivid descriptions of each battle on Indian soil and the militarization of the Indian sub-continent. Battling other European powers on foreign soil became the norm, and to ‘counter the threat of the French,’ the British government turned a blind eye to the EIC’s shady dealings. This increment of mercenaries did shock the British government, and their response to the bloodshed and famine was a complete upheaval of the EIC and assumed control over India.

The Anarchy itself is a must-read – whether you are interested in history or not, this book can be the one that you read in small doses throughout the year. It provided me with raw content, enough to ask myself questions and subsequently answer them with empirical evidence. Yes, racism is still a plague on human society. But look at how Indians ended this racism (to be filled with other kinds later) – through mass movements. The power of the people should never be underestimated.

Those are my thoughts for the week! I look forward to reading your opinions and feedback in the comments below! Do follow my page to get notified when I post!