Chapter 19 Chapter 15 India

Before the arrival of the British, India had been repeatedly invaded by Aryans, Greeks, Scythians, Turks and Mughals.These invaders have left their own marks on this huge subcontinent, and promoted the development of traditional Indian society to varying degrees.The historical role of the British is to split and transform this traditional society.Other invaders caused changes mainly at the top of society, but the influence of the British was felt down to the village level.The reason for this difference between the British and the former can be found in the dynamic, expansive nature of British society, which gradually undermined the more static, self-sufficient Indian society.To understand this process of invasion and transformation, it is first necessary to study the nature of traditional Indian society.We will then examine the nature of British influence and India's response to it.

In pre-industrial times, the basic unit of traditional Indian society was the village, as in most of the rest of the world, including Europe.Within the village, the important relationship is not the individual, but the joint family and caste.This collective form of organization is a source not only of social stability but of national weakness.Loyalty to family, stock, and village is the main reason, and this loyalty prevents the formation of a national spirit. The land, according to ancient custom, was regarded as the property of the sovereign; and the sovereign was entitled to a part of the whole produce, or its equivalent.This constituted the land tax, which was the main source of state revenue and the main burden on the cultivators.The share of production handed over to the state varied from period to period: from one-sixth to one-third or even half.Usually, the collective with the village as the unit is responsible for paying the land tax in products or currency.In some parts of India a general equality was maintained by the regular redistribution of land according to the number of laborers per family.In addition to this customary practice, the peasant has a hereditary right to use the land as long as he pays his share of the tax.

Means of transport and transportation are primitive, and as a result, villages tend to become economically and socially self-sufficient.Every village has its own potters, carpenters, blacksmiths, scribes, village shepherds, priests and teachers and ever present astrologers.A potter uses a potter's wheel to produce simple vessels needed by farmers; a carpenter builds and repairs buildings and plows; a blacksmith makes axes and other necessary tools; a clerk handles legal documents and writes letters between people in different villages; village income Cattle were herded by day and returned to the owners by night; priest and teacher were often the same person; astrologers indicated auspicious times for sowing, harvest, marriage, and other important events.These artisans and specialists serve their villages on a near-barter basis.They were paid for their services by either grain from farming families or tax-free land from the village for their own use.These hereditary, traditional divisions of occupations and duties are stamped obligatory by caste hierarchies.

The political structure of the village consisted of a Zemstvo of more than five members elected each year, known today as the Panchayat (panchayat, “Pancha” means “five”).Village self-government committees usually consist of caste chiefs and village elders; they meet regularly to administer local justice, collect taxes, get village wells, roads, and irrigation systems repaired, seek to maintain artisans and other specialized occupations, courteously Entertain and guide travelers passing through the village.Apart from paying land taxes and meeting occasional demands for forced labor, the village had little contact with the outside world.The combination of agriculture and handicrafts made each village largely independent of the rest of India except for a few necessities such as salt and iron.Thus, the original cities of India were non-industrial in nature.Rather, they were religious centers such as Benares, Buri and Allahabad, political centers such as Pune, Tanjore and Delhi, or commercial centers such as Mirza on the merchant route from central India to Bengal Boolean.

Indian writers have tended to romanticize this traditional society, painting an idyllic picture of country life that continues peacefully from generation to generation at a slow but satisfying pace.True, the existence of collective organizations such as united families, caste and village councils provided farmers with psychological and economic security.Each individual recognizes responsibilities, rights and status within their local village.If the central government was strong enough to maintain order and limit land payments to one-sixth of the usual crop, then the peasant masses lived a peaceful and satisfying life.But the central government is often too weak to keep order, so the villagers are subjected to greedy tax histories and ruthless extortion by powerful gangs. This was the case when the structure of the Mughal Empire collapsed in the 17th century.Father Sebastião Manrique, a Portuguese missionary who lived in India in 1629 and 1640-1641, noticed that the land tax in Bengal was not only increased repeatedly, but also collected 4 to 6 months in advance.The reason for this, he said, was the frequent turnover of officials, who were often dismissed or transferred after serving only a short period of time. "Therefore they used to collect taxes in advance, often by violence, and when poor people could not pay their taxes, they took their wives and children, made them slaves, and auctioned them off, if the latter were heathen" (That is, Hindus and not Muslims like the ruling Mughals).

Yet even in such trying times, the Indian village was not changed in any fundamental way.Individual regions were devastated, but eventually the cultivators returned to restore their traditional institutions and traditional ways of life.As late as 1830, the British Governor-General Charles Metcalf referred to and emphasized this timeless, indestructible character of the Indian village: Relatively speaking, before the arrival of the British, Indian villages were unchanged and self-sufficient.But before exploring the impact of these Western invaders, we will examine the reasons why they were able to conquer all of India with little difficulty during the late eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.This was a practical matter, because for 250 years after Yabukwe captured Goa in the early sixteenth century (see Chapter 9, Section 4), the position of the European states in India remained essentially the same. For 250 years, they could only stick to a few coastal bases.Then, in just a few decades, the balance of power shifted decisively, and the entire Indian subcontinent came under British rule.

To some extent, this outcome can be explained by the continuous growth of the economic and military power of Western countries.However, this is not the only factor as it does not explain why India's submission to the West was much earlier than China's submission to the West.It is therefore necessary to take into account the conditions prevailing in India itself.First, the power and power of the Mughals had declined (see Chapter 2, Section 4).This allowed Muslim warlords and governors to declare independence and establish personal dynasties in various regions.In this way, the Nizam of Hyderabad came to power beginning in 1724, and Hyder Ali and his son Tipu Sultan installed themselves in Mysore (the father came to power in 1761, the son later).Meanwhile, the Hindus asserted their rights by organizing a powerful "Maratha" confederation with its center in the city of Pune. The Marathas won control of the entire Deccan and then, around 1740 , began to invade northern India, intending to replace the declining Mughals. Thus, in the eighteenth century, as various officials tried to convert their positions into hereditary vassal positions, as they fought with the Any power, Indian or foreign, is illicit, and India is in a state of anarchy. Thus, the English can pit one Indian maharaja against another until they become masters of the whole peninsula. The situation is quite different from that in China; The Manchu imperial structure remained intact, thus forcing all foreigners to deal directly with the emperor in Beijing.In other words, in the 18th century, India experienced a degree of fragmentation, while China, in the 20th century, the Manchus were overthrown and the local warlords Before rising, there is no need to experience this kind of split.

Another important factor that greatly contributed to India's vulnerability was the rise of a powerful merchant class whose economic interests were closely linked to those of Western corporations.These companies are relatively free to do business in India (they are almost completely excluded in China). In the 16th century, India's economy was very little affected by trade as it was mostly limited to spices and textiles.However, in the 17th century, in addition to saltpeter, various commercial crops such as indigo, mustard seed and hemp were exported in large quantities.Bengal was the center of this trade; there, by this time, arose wealthy native traders who controlled the local economy and grew increasingly restless under the corrupt and incompetent rule of Mughal officials.It was one of these merchants, the Vivacious Seth, who bought the loyalty of the generals who thought they were supposed to be following the orders of the Nawab of Bengal, the Viceroy.At the Battle of Plassey (1757), these generals avoided fighting the British; the British lost only 65 men in this momentous encounter.As one Indian historian put it, Plassey was "a deal, not a battle".

The British were now the de facto rulers of Bengal, though they continued to formally recognize the puppet nawab. In 1764, after the British East India Company defeated the Mughal army, it was granted the right to collect taxes in the wealthy places of Bengal, Bihar and Orissa.This opened up a variety of opportunities for profit and blatant extortion, which British agents took full advantage of.By raising taxes, controlling trade, and accepting many "gifts" from native officials, they amassed wealth for themselves and their superiors in London.Nor do company officials and their Indian agents bear the very high taxes levied on Indian businessmen.Two British historians said: "People have understood that instigating revolution is the most profitable trick in the world. Hysteria ruled the Spaniards in the time of Cortez and Pizarro, and the greed for gold is the natural Like no other since then, it fills the minds of Englishmen. Bengal, in particular, did not experience peace again until it was bled out of its blood." Richard Beecher, an employee of the company, on May 24, 1769, in his In the letter of his master in London, he wrote: "It must make an Englishman very miserable if there is reason to think that the people of this country are worse off than before since 'Diwany' fell into the hands of the company. . . . This good country, which once prospered under the most despotic and arbitrary government, is now on the verge of ruin."

With a foothold in Bengal, the British were given the bases and resources necessary for further expansion in India.At that time, there were four other contenders for Mughal dominion - the French, the ruler of Mysore, the ruler of Hyderabad and the Maratha alliance.The French were driven out during the Seven Years' War and had to surrender virtually all their fortresses in India through the Peace of Paris in 1763 (see Chapter VII, Section VI).Then, during the American Revolution, the British were also challenged in India by a coalition of three major indigenous powers.Governor Warren Hastings first managed to hold off, then took the offensive.By 1800, only the British and the Marathas remained; in later years the British gradually gained the upper hand due to discord within the Maratha Union.By 1818 the Marathas had been crushed, although some fighting by the British continued with the Marathas in addition to some fighting with the Sikhs in the Punjab.

After the British settled in the center of the subcontinent, they began to push northward in search of natural boundaries.To the northeast, in Nepal in the Himalayas, they defeated the Gurkhas, who have since fought on the side of the British.Also, in the northwest, they finally defeated the proud Sikhs of Punjab.Thus, by the middle of the nineteenth century, the British were masters of all India, from the Indus to the Brahmaputra, from the Himalayas to Cape Comorin.A few major kingdoms survived, including Kashmir, Hyderabad, Baroda, and Travancore, but these were now dependencies, isolated from each other and powerless against British influence. At this time the British, with their power firmly established in India, invaded the neighboring countries.The previous rulers of India, with one exception, did not try to expand beyond the sea because they lacked sea power.In contrast, the British had no opponents in the eastern seas, and they also had the huge resources of a unified India as their backing.As early as 1819, Sir Stamford Raffles occupied Singapore in the Malay Peninsula.The significance of this occupation was fully realized at the time. "You have only to look at the map...where we stand completely flanks the Strait of Malacca, obtaining a passage for our ships bound for China at all times and under all circumstances. Singapore can become like Malta in the East That in the West." The British then turned to Burma on India's eastern border.They fought three wars with this country, the first in 1824, the second in 1852, and the last in 1886, which ended in annexation of the country. In addition to these outright annexations, the British built a defensive network of alliances and spheres of influence around India.The British, although pursuing different policies under successive Conservative and Liberal governments, generally sought to create a protective buffer zone around their Indian empire, wary of an expansionist Russia in Central Asia.This explains their two invasions of Afghanistan in 1839 and 1879.In the end, the British recognized the country's independence and gave it a financial aid in exchange for control of its foreign relations.Likewise, rumors of a Russian invasion of Tibet led the British to send an expedition to Tibet in 1904.As a result, an agreement was made whereby Tibet agreed not to recognize any foreign agents.Further west, the British repeatedly clashed with the Russians in order to have primary influence over Persia.The struggle swung back and forth until the two contenders reached the Anglo-Russian Agreement of 1907, agreeing to divide Persia into a British sphere of influence in the south, a Russian sphere in the north, and a buffer zone in the centre. Lord Curzon, Governor General of India from 1899 to 1905, clearly and frankly stated the rationale behind these military operations and diplomatic arrangements: It may be added that the French were conquering Indochina while the British were settling in and around India.They forced the Chinese government to renounce its claim to Indochina's suzerainty in 1883.Siam avoided foreign rule as the British wanted to maintain a buffer state between British Burma and French Indochina.The East Indies are still under the rule of the Dutch, who captured the East Indies from the Portuguese in the 17th century. We have seen how brutally exploitative the East India Company was in its initial administration of the parts of India it controlled.This atrocity aroused public opinion in England; this, together with some political reasons, led Parliament to pass Acts in 1773 and 1784 placing corporations under the supervision of the London government.The company continued to trade, and its employees and soldiers continued to administer and fight in India, but the company performed its duties under the watchful eye of Parliament and the British Government.The next change occurred in 1833, when the company lost its commercial monopoly, and thereafter it functioned primarily as an executive branch of the king.At this time, the principal privilege and raison d'être of the corporation consisted in the appointment of civilians, which constituted a great and influential power of appointment.However, an 1853 statute eliminated this power of appointment by establishing a public competitive examination for supplementary civil servants.Thus, the continued existence of the company can hardly be justified, and in fact, many had predicted the company's earlier downfall.Doubtless the company would have ended up being formally abolished had the Indian uprising of 1857 not abruptly forced the British decision. This uprising was not a national movement and a war of independence as some Indian writers have called it.Rather, it was primarily a military uprising exploited by certain disaffected princes and landowners whose interests had been jeopardized by the British. Lord Dalhousie, the governor-general from 1848 to 1856, drove out many princes, causing uneasiness and suspicion among those who remained.Other groups were also dissatisfied: the conservative elements of the Indian population were greatly disturbed by the introduction of railways and telegraphs, the opening of Western-style schools, the aggressive activities of certain Christian missionaries, the legal sanction of widow remarriage and Practices such as infanticide and widow burial, in which widows burn themselves on the funeral pyre of their husbands, were abolished.Indian soldiers, that is, Indian soldiers who served in the British army, were also dissatisfied with long-term combat in remote areas and without the perks of such service.The introduction of bullets coated with tallow and lard was the spark that sparked the uprising, since the coating of bullets with tallow and lard aroused disgust among Hindus and Muslims.All these factors combined to give the uprising the scale of a popular uprising in some scattered areas. When the uprising began on May 10, 1857, the British were taken by surprise and forced to go on the defensive.However, the uprising was mainly limited to the north and did not spread throughout the country.Even most of the important native states remained loyal to the British and provided invaluable aid.Thus, after about 4 months, the British were able to counterattack; by July 1858, the uprising had been suppressed.Atrocities were committed on both sides: the Indians massacred many captives, the British burned villages and killed residents indiscriminately. A month after the suppression of the uprising, Parliament passed the "India Act" ending the rule of the East India Company and replacing it with a monarchy.Henceforth India is governed by a vast ruling circle, with its base in India and its apex, the Indian Secretary of State, in London.India's minister of state is a member of the cabinet and is usually given free rein by his peers.The most senior official in India is the Governor General, who acts as the monarch's direct representative, usually for a five-year term.The Governor was assisted by an executive council of five; before 1909, none of these five was Indian.Beneath these top officials are prominent Indian civil servants who collect taxes, maintain law and order, and oversee the judicial system. Before 1919, the members of this small but noble group were almost exclusively British graduates of Oxford and Cambridge.The Indian Civil Service runs a lower local administration staffed entirely by Indians. It is through these Indian officials in the lower ranks of the bureaucracy that the power of the government penetrates to the masses. The efficiency of British rule in India is reflected in the fact that in 1900 there were 4,000 British civil administrators in India, compared with 500,000 Indian civil administrators. In 1910, the Indian Army consisted of 69000 British and 13000 Indians.It should be noted that the British position in India was based not only on the army and bureaucracy but also on the surviving Indian Maharajas.Before the uprising, the British often took over duchies without compunction when the situation was right.After the insurrection, however, this policy was completely changed, so that India has since remained like a quilt of scraps: composed of some 550 native states mixed with some of the British Indian provinces.Lord Canning, the first Governor-General after the Rebellion, stated the reasons for this change in policy in 1860: "If we can maintain many native states without political power, but as instruments of the crown, we need only maintain our own maritime Hegemony can survive in India." Another Governor, Lord Lytton, declared ZO years later: "From now on, we shall make the British monarch support the hopes, aspirations, opinions and interests of the powerful native nobles." Obviously, however sincere the British officials in India, they had little direct contact with Indian views.Most of them are sincere attempts to understand and correct the ills inherent in a vast, unrepresentative bureaucracy.But their preconceived notions, naturally British, prevent them from seeing the full implications and implications of the decisions they make.For example, being British, they often see the adoption of English law as a great boon, when in fact it often acts as a vehicle for social division.We shall now examine British influence, whether intentional or unintentional, on its Indian Empire. Economic Influence The British influence on India was first and foremost in the economic sphere, and it would naturally be so from the time the British arrived in India in search of markets and goods.Especially after the Americans became the masters of India, they decisively affected the Indian economy, although often unintentionally.This was the case when Lord Cornwallis introduced a form of private property in land in the Lower Ganges with his great Fixed Grant Act of 1793.Traditionally, tax collectors have been state officials responsible for receiving a share of the state's harvest from the many villages assigned to them.But at this time, some tax collectors turned into British-style landlords, that is, land tax collectors, and although most villagers used to enjoy the hereditary right to use the land, they were now under the control of rent servants who could be refunded by the landlord at any time. status. It is estimated that the new landowners received a little over £3 million a year in ground rent from the farmers, but they had to pass on ten-elevenths of this to the British authorities and keep one-eleventh for themselves.The "permanence" of this arrangement lies in the fact that the total amount of land rent handed over by the land tax collector each year remains the same for all subsequent periods.This proved to be a windfall for the new landowners, who by the time of the Second World War were collecting between £12 million and £10 million a year in rent, while still paying the state It was the original £3 million.The later Governor-General, Lord William Bentinck, explained the motivation behind this strange contract as follows: The English did win the loyalty of the tax collectors, but they also caused a revolution in the village which they did not foresee at all.The old arrangements of the commons now gave way to individual ownership, contract law, mortgages, garnishments, and auctions.In the past, the collection of land taxes was quite flexible, but at this time, the tax amount was fixed, and the tax had to be paid on a specified day, otherwise, private property had to be auctioned off by the public to repay the tax owed.In addition, these strange new laws are enforced by foreign officials who speak foreign languages ​​and, often, have little knowledge of local issues and customs.In these cases, many Indian farmers have lost their land, or are desperately in debt.The traditional, non-commercial, self-sufficient life of an Indian village is gradually but irresistibly coming to an end. To fulfill their new fiscal responsibilities, farmers must abandon their natural economy and devote themselves to producing goods that can be sold on world markets.These goods were transported to the seaports by a new network of railroads; 4,000 miles long by 1870, 7,000 miles by 1880, and 41,000 miles by 1939.The opening of the Suez Canal reduced the distance that cargo ships traveled between London and Karachi from 10,800 miles to 6,100 miles, thereby facilitating the export of raw materials from India.Therefore, India has become an important source of raw materials in the world.Wheat, cotton and jute flow from Punjab, Mumbai and Bengal respectively. Moreover, the same railroads that carried away commercial crops brought cheap, machine-made industrial products back to the villages.These circumstances have gradually undermined the status of the village artisans who have endeavored to practice their craft since time immemorial.Fewer and fewer village artisans could live off what they received from the service of their fellow villagers.It was the same situation that had earlier occurred in Great Britain and other European countries with the advent of industrialization.In these cases, however, artisans were able to find work in the new factories that sprang up in the cities.In India, however, there was no such industrialization that could absorb large numbers of uprooted people.Britain did not try to promote Indian manufacturing and, at critical moments, actively discouraged it.Even in the early nineteenth century, British cotton and silk goods imported into India were taxed at 3.5%, woolen goods at 2%, while Indian cotton, silk and woolen goods imported into Britain were taxed at 10%, 20% and 30% respectively.In the 30 years between 1814 and 1844, the number of Indian cotton goods imported into England fell from 1.25 million to 63,000, while the British cotton cloth exported to India rose from less than 1 million yards to more than 51 million yards.Not only the Indian spinners and weavers, but also the tanners, casters, blacksmiths, shipwrights, and many others, bowed to the tide from the English factories.Where can these countless excluded people go?They had to turn to agriculture, creating a terrible overpressure on the land!Land remains to this day one of the most pressing issues of the Indian economy.At the same time, this demographic pressure is intensified by the steady growth of the population.Thanks to Western medical science, sanitation measures, and famine relief arrangements, India's population rose from 255 million in 1872 to 305 million in 1921. These economic developments naturally had a profound impact on the people of India, but whether this impact was beneficial or detrimental is a matter for debate.Not all the facts support one point of view or the other.Undoubtedly, British rule contributed to the economic development of India; this is reflected in the expansion of irrigation works, the laying of the railway network, the opening of coal fields in Bengal and the oil fields in Burma, the establishment of modern iron and steel works in Raniganj, tea plantations and coffee plantations development and the increase of financial institutions and joint-stock organizations.All this meant greater productivity, which enabled India to support a much larger population in 1914 than it was possible to support in the eighteenth century. But the question remains whether this larger population was wealthier than the smaller one in the pre-British era.Due to incomplete evidence, no definite answer can be given.To be sure, changes in land tenure and the decline of rural handicrafts brought widespread misery.This not only creates population pressure and unemployment in the countryside, but also causes social chaos and psychological insecurity.Peasants no longer had a hereditary right to a piece of land in the village.Instead, the peasant became a helpless tenant farmer, working for the greedy landlord, the landowning peasant, who was at the mercy of a changing world market that he could neither understand nor control.Over time, a larger and larger portion of the farmland fell into the hands of moneylenders and the wealthy. In addition, the transformation of rural economies gradually undermined rural institutions.The joint family is weakened as its members find job opportunities outside the village and as the traditional communal spirit gives way to individualism.Caste hierarchy remained a religious, ceremonial institution, but its importance and effectiveness was diminished by the impact of the outside world on rural daily life.Likewise, village self-government councils declined as various government ministries took over more and more functions of village self-government councils.Undoubtedly, all these changes were very disturbing and unpleasant to the ordinary Indian villager. The economic and social dislocation of the countryside should be balanced by the opportunities offered by the new urban centers.The growth of commerce and industry led to the development of large cities such as Mumbai, Madras and Kolkata and industrial cities such as Ahmedabad and Jamshedpur.In these centers emerged a middle class made up of landed and city property owners, government officials, businessmen, and various specialized professions such as lawyers, doctors, and journalists.By 1914, the urban population was equivalent to about 10% of India's total population.Indian people are not better off due to western influence, probably worse off.why?The basic reason is that the above-mentioned development is not enough to absorb a large number of rural people who are forced to leave their homes.It should be mentioned, however, that the emerging urban middle class represents a significant political reform that will ultimately change the face of India and its relations with the rest of the world.The middle class replaced the old ruling circles that had been driven out by the British conquerors, and provided a boost to what was rapidly developing.The impetus of nationalist movements and new thoughts; nationalist movements and new thoughts are reviving India. For about half a century after the British conquered India, the British made no attempt to impose their own culture on India.They are busy making administrative, financial and judicial arrangements.Thus, they left the old educational system undisturbed, but also unsupported.Primary education continues to be provided in Hindu or Muslim village schools.Higher learning, however, declined because it no longer enjoyed the usual patronage of native princes and nobles.By 1811, the Viceroy, Lord Minto, warned that science and literature in India were deteriorating very rapidly, and that if the government did not intervene, the Renaissance might become hopeless due to a lack of books and teachers.Two years later, the government did respond with an annual grant of £10,000 for "revival, improvement of literature and encouragement of learned natives". The government did little to enforce this legislation before 1823, when a board of public education was appointed to spend the accumulated grants.The committee decided that it should sponsor an education not of the British type but based on Sanskrit.Oriental education in Arabic and Persian.This is not surprising, as British scholars have discovered and been impressed by Indian cultural heritage, especially the common origin of the Aryans in India and Europe.For example, Sir William Jones praised Sanskrit, saying that it "has a wonderful structure, more perfect than Greek, more lexical than Latin, and much more beautiful than both".However, some Indians objected to the decision as they wanted to learn English in order to find jobs in the new government.The more far-sighted of these opponents favored an education of the Western type in order to make available to their fellow-citizens the whole body of Western learning.Most eminent was the eminent Bengali scholar Ram Mohan Roy, whose career we shall shortly examine.Roy, in a letter to the Governor-General in 1823, asserted that traditional education was merely "to fill the minds of the young with grammatical nuances and metaphysical distinctions, which have no practical effect on the learner or on society." use or no practical use at all”.He called for "a more liberal and enlightened system of education, which would include mathematics, natural philosophy, chemistry, anatomy, and other useful subjects." The controversy split the Board of Public Education into two factions - "Students of English Language and Literature" and "Students of Oriental Culture".The point of contention is not entirely clear, since Eastern cultural researchers are happy to have courses in English, and even courses on Western thinkers, but only within the confines of traditional courses.The stalemate continued until Thomas Babington Macaulay was appointed chairman of the committee in 1834.The following year he drew up his famous Memorandum on Education in which he adopted Roy's views wholeheartedly, concluding that "English is better known than Sanskrit or Arabic.  …" Macaulay added , "With our limited means we cannot attempt to educate the whole people. We must now endeavor to produce a body of men who will act as interpreters between us and the innumerable men over whom we rule; men who, by blood and color, Indian, but English in taste, opinion, morals, and intellect." As soon as this exhortation from Macleay was formally accepted, Macleay worked hard to fulfill his advice.In the following decades a national educational system was worked out which included universities, teachers' colleges for teachers, secondary schools, and local primary schools for the masses. Between 1855 and 1900, the number of students at universities and colleges rose from 429,000 to 633,000.At the same time, the adoption of the printing press greatly promoted the cultural life of India.Sanskrit writings became public property rather than a carefully guarded monopoly by Brahmins.Newspapers seem to have been published not only in English, but in the various Indian languages ​​of recent times. These developments have deeply influenced the cultural climate of India.They did not reach the masses, which remained completely uneducated.Initially, they did not affect Muslims either, who remained generally hostile to the new schools and books.For half a century, Muslims insisted on their traditional culture and only studied Islamic law, literature and theology.British education thus became almost the exclusive property of a small Hindu upper class.But it was enough to start a chain reaction that has continued to this day.首先，英国教育创造了熟悉外国的语言和文化、接受自由主义的、理性的思想意识的一批新的印度人。这些人已冲破宗教、种姓和风俗的传统的模子。他们已如同麦考利所预言的，成为这样的人——“就血统和肤色而言是印度人，但就爱好、见解、道德和才智而言是英国人。” 这一发展又产生两个深远的影响。一个影响是它首次为印度各地的人们提供了一种共同的语言和一种共同的文化背景。以往，他们一向为语言差别、宗教差别和文化差别的屏障所分隔，而现在，这些屏障为来自英国的新的语言、文学和思想所粉碎。英国教育还产生了政治影响。西方的思想与整个印度的统一这种新形式一起，不可避免地产生政治上的自觉性和对印度自治的要求。英国人在印度采用自己的语言和文化，是为了使印度现代化，是为了创造出一批将帮助他们从事行政管理的、受过西方教育的人。他们确到达了这些目的，但同时，他们又逐渐严重地破坏了他们在印度的统治。因为正是这批受过西方教育的人，利用欧洲的思想意识来攻击英国的统治，并组织了一个民族主义运动，这一运动最后以独立的印度而告终。 英国的思想文化影响促进了印度的思想、文化方面的高涨和创造力，这些高涨和创造力通常称为印度复兴。要正确评价这一运动的意义，就应该注意到，当英国人到场时，印度教大概处于受压迫的、混乱的状态。在穆斯林统治的前700年中，印度教受到轻视，被看作是一个从属种族的盲目崇拜的宗教。它缺乏威望、组织和积极的领导。但是，当英国人推翻莫卧儿的统治时，印度教700年来首次处于与伊斯兰教平等的阶级。当英国人开办学校时，印度教徒与穆斯林大不相同，热切地成群结队地涌向学校。通过这样做，他们两个方面得益：他们在新的官僚机构中担任职务，他们由于与西方的交往而经历了智力的复活。 西方的促进因素在印度教徒中间引起了三种反应或三种学派，不过，它们之间的界限并不明确，有着许多相一致的地方。第一种反应是全心全意、不加批评地亲西方的、反传统的：西方一切被认为事实上是优越的、更可取的。 第二种反应时完全的拒绝的反应。西方无可否认地是更强更大的，然而，它的思想是颠覆性的，它的风俗是令人厌恶的。没有一个真正的印度人——无论他是印度教徒或穆斯林——应该和这种邪恶的东西妥协。相反，他应该尽量避免与外国人接触，应该以传统的方式过自己的生活。这种观点的支持者认为种姓统治是不可改变的，无保留地接受原来的权威，并反对废除殉节风俗或杀婴风俗之类的改革。 对西方的第三种、也是最通常的一种反应是居于盲目崇拜和彻底拒绝之间的妥协。它接受西方的现世主义和学问的精华，但也试图从内部改革印度教，试图在摆脱印度教的腐朽和粗俗的外壳的同时保持它的基本真理。这一学派的杰出领袖是被广泛地尊称为“近代印度之父”的拉姆·莫汉·罗伊。他于1772 年出生于一个虔诚的婆罗门家庭，由于看到他姐姐在丈夫的火葬柴堆上受折磨的场面，他与父母断绝了关系。他是一个不知足的学生，掌握了波斯语、阿拉伯语和梵语，然后又学习英语，进入政府部门任职。他被西方的思想和宗教强烈地吸引住，为了阅读《圣经》原文而学习希腊语和希伯莱语。罗伊拒绝形式上的教条的基督教而接受基督教的人道主义的启示。他的著作《耶稣的箴言：和平与幸福的指南》是个人对基督教所作的解释——是对传教土的答复而不是对他的同胞的召唤。罗伊还向梵社（神社）即他创立的一个新的印度教改良派重新解释了印度教。梵社并不如通常所说的那样，是印度教的一个被基督教冲淡了的组织，而是欧洲启蒙运动的学说与《奥义书》的哲学观点的一个综合物。罗伊首先是一个理性主义者，认为印度教直接建立在理性之上。这一原则被确立后，他开始削减当时的印度教习俗，自由地借用西方的东西。因而，他给他的追随者们留下了一个信条，这一信条使追随者们能面对西方面不失去自己的特点和自尊。 罗伊于1833年去世，在他死后的60年里，梵社仍然是努力净化印度教的中心。然后，创始力转到达耶难陀大师（1824—1883年）那里，他排斥当时的“梵社”，认为梵社过多地受到西方的影响，不知道他们自己的印度教的文化和传统。达耶难陀创建了雅利安社。这名字强调了这一新组织代表印度的原则而不是代表“外国的”原则。雅利安社的纲领强调梵文教育和《吠陀》的权威。达耶难陀决不是一个反动分子，因为他利用《吠陀》作为他攻击不可接触的贱民的社会地位、童婚、性别不平等和偶像崇拜的根据。 印度复兴的另外两个杰出的领袖是罗摩克里希纳先生（1836—1886 年）和辨喜大师（1863一1902年）。罗摩克里希纳是个道德高尚的神秘主义者，他的自然的纯洁和对神的无私的献身吸引了印度各地甚至国外的信徒。他的最著名的弟子是辨喜；1893年，辨喜在芝加哥第一届世界宗教会议上讲话时，引起了国际上的注意。他在美国和欧洲讲演了四年之后，作为一个民族英雄回到印度。然后，他献身于其同胞的精神上的新生，使罗摩克里希纳教会致力于社会工作和宗教教育。39岁时，他因过分劳累而去世，但是，他在向世界宣讲印度教的原则方面所取得的成功已使他的同胞获得尊严感和自豪感。这样，印度教对西方的挑战所作出的响应是兜了一个圈子：从拒绝、模仿到批判地再评价和满怀信心地肯定。 拉姆·莫汉·罗伊不仅是印度宗教复兴的最早的领袖，也是印度政治觉醒即民族主义运动的最早的领袖。这在印度是一种新现象；以往，印度一向存在着文化统一和地区忠诚，但是，不存在全印度的爱国主义感情。民族主义能在英国统治下发展起来，有着几方面的原因。一个原因在于英国人的“优越感”——英国人深信他们是种族的精华，由神注定要永久地统治印度。正如英国政治家约翰·斯特雷奇所说的： 这种种族主义在起义以后特别强烈，在各个方面显示出来——在军队和官僚机构中，印度人不论其条件如何，不可能升迁到某些等级以上；在社会生活中，印度人被拒绝在某些旅馆、俱乐部和公园之外。在这些情况下，一种对立的文化、民族意识也许不可避免地会渐渐地发展起来。 英国人还由于他们强加于印度半岛的前所未有的统一而促进了民族主义。整个印度首次处于一种统治之下，英国统治下的和乎遍及整块陆地。英国人还用他们的铁路、电报和邮政设施锻造了一种有形的统一。在采用英语作为受教育者的共同语言之后出现的前所未有的语言的统一也同样重要。 英国的教育制度把西方的文学和政治思想的整个主要部分引入印度，也促进了印度的民族主义。自由主义和民族主义的原则、个人自由和民族自决的原则，不可避免地变得对外来的英国统治不利起来。印度的领袖们不仅运用西方的政治原则，而且运用西方的政治技术。报纸、讲台上演说、编写小册子、群众集会、规模巨大的宿愿——所有这些都被用作适合于民族主义磨坊的制粉用谷物。一个民族主义领袖写道：“在政治方面，印度的民族主义已由于欧洲民族主义的力量而得到鼓舞和加强。……新印度所信奉的民族主义伟大人物的一览表中包括如下名字：伯尔达布、罗姆达斯、古鲁·戈文德·辛格、西瓦吉、提普·苏丹和占西的拉尼；在这些名字的旁边，是华盛顿、加富尔、马志尼、俾斯麦、科苏特、埃米特和巴涅尔。”西方的独立运动和印度的独立运动之间有着密切的联系；从以下的《美国独立宣言》和印度国民大会党的成员在“独立日”（1950年1月26日）所发的誓言的节录中，可找到这方面的明显例子： 拉姆·莫汉·罗伊以他的政治、社会改革运动为印度的民族主义打下了基础。他曾设宴庆祝巴黎的1830 年革命，由此可以看出他对政治、社会改革的强烈兴趣。基本上，正是因为他发起了反对寡妇殉葬的运动，英国政府才禁止殉节风俗。罗伊还为行政改革和司法改革而工作，帮助创办了英语学校和报纸。后来许多杰出的印度民族主义领袖就是在与罗伊有联系的著名的加尔各答印度教学院首次接触到新的学说。 在印度早期的民族主义领袖当中，有三个人尤其值得注意。第一个是印度商人达达布黑·挪罗齐（1825 -1917年），他在伦敦住过多年，事实上，1892年时，还经自由党提名当选为下议院议员。挪罗齐强调了印度的财富外流到英国这一情况，设法任命国会的一个委员会去调查英属印度的财政管理。另一个杰出的领袖是血G.拉那德（1842-1901年），他因为担任法官而被取消进入政界的资格，所以，他倾全力于社会、经济改革。在仔细研究了印度的问题之后，他下结论说，最大的需要是在英国的赞助下达到迅速的工业化，他致力于实现这一目标。拉那德的信徒是G·K·戈卡莱（1866—1915年），他也主要对经济问题感兴趣。作为立法会议的成员，他提出了“没有代表席位就不纳税”的口号，他每年关于帝国预算的演说迫使当局多次减税和进行财政改革。 所有这些人在他们接受英国的统治、仅仅试图获得某些让步的意义上说，都是“温和派”。因此，他们进行合作，支持于1885年建立的印度国民大会党。这一团体所提出的目标是要为“印度仍然完全不适于任何形式的代议制机构这一主张”提供“一个无可辩驳的回答”。但是，这种对议会制政体的渴望决不是与对英国的真心实意的忠诚不相容的。曾三次担任国大党主席的挪罗齐在一次主席致辞中宣布： 这第一代的印度民族主义者是大不列颠的赞赏者和合作的提倡者。但是，1890 年以后，这些“温和派”受到由“印度革命之父”巴尔·甘加德哈·提拉克（1856-1920年）领导的极端派的挑战。提拉克是一个斗志昂扬的战斗者，试图把民族主义事业从上层阶级的运动改变为人民群众的运动。这一点解释了他对印度教的许多社会习俗的武断的支持，他甚至于组织了一个母牛保护会和支持童婚。但同时，他为工人的法定最低限度工资、工会组织的自由、平民军队的创立、普选权以及没有性别差别的自由的义务教育而奋斗。提拉克是个才华横溢的演说家和报刊编辑，使他的报纸《狮报》成为宣传和教育的强有力的机构。他以诸如“教育、鼓动、组织”、“好战，不要行乞”以及“自由是我与生俱来的权利，我将得到它” 之类的口号在全国赢得追随者。 19 世纪90年代的一系列饥荒和瘟疫促使不满情绪增长；这一点帮助了提拉克的改革运动。1905年的俄国革命和同年日本对俄国的胜利也激起印度的战斗精神。后一个事件特别振奋人心，被看作是对西方占优势这一断言的一个实际的、明显的驳斥。此时，印度政府于19O5年通过了一条法令，把孟加拉划分成两个省：拥有1800万穆斯林和1200万印度教徒的新的东孟加拉与拥有4200万印度教徒和1200万穆斯林的剩余的孟加拉。政府的公开声称的目的是要改善行政管理，因为原先的省太大了，恒河以东的地区已被忽视。但是，对印度民族主义者来说，这似乎是，英国人通过把孟加拉划分成穆斯林和印度教徒分别占优势的两部分，正在推行分而治之的政策。这一问题使全国的民族主义者在前所未有的程度上团结起来。他们以口号“自治”即英帝国范围以内的自治和“抵制外货运动”即联合抵制英货来十分有效地与政府作斗争。大批的学生担任商店的纠察，妇女们首次积极投身于政治活动，出现在纠察的行列里。由于孟加拉问题所激起的强烈感情，激进派能控制印度国大党1906年的大会，能获得赞成“自治”和“抵制外货运动”的多数投票。有些民族主义者更进一步，学习爱尔兰和俄国的地下组织的榜样和方法，采取恐怖主义行动。仅仅孟加拉，1906至1917年间，就发生168起暴行，夺去了61人的生命。 这一民族主义运动虽然很普遍，但主要是印度教的。在赛义德·艾哈迈德歼爵士的领导下，穆斯林多半置身于印度国大党之外。他们预见到，如果国大党的实现代议制政体的要求得到满足，穆斯林就会作为永久的少数派而遭受恶果。印度教民族主义的不断增长的力量和战斗精神也使穆斯林惊恐，尤其是从一些最热情的印度教爱国者称穆斯林为“外国人”以后。为了自卫，穆斯林组织了穆斯林联盟，它同印度国大党一样，每年举行大会。英国人自然欢迎和支持穆斯林联盟作为反对国大党的一个平衡力。但是，穆斯林联盟的存在基本上不是由于英国人的诡计，而是由于许多民族主义领袖如提拉克把他们的运动建立在复兴印度教的基础上的错误。例如，母牛保护会的组成无疑帮助了民族主义运动，但它使穆斯林印度人疏远，因为穆斯林印度人自然对他们在一个由印度教控制的印度中的前途感到忧惧。 其时，恐怖主义传播开来，甚至“温和派”也愈益不满起来，这种情况使英国政府确信作某种让步是必需的。因此，1909 年，印度事务大臣莫利勋爵和总督明托勋爵提出了所谓的莫利-明托改革方案。这些方案规定，在很高的财产资格、收入资格或教育资格的基础上挑选出来的为数极少的一群印度选民应该选举省总督的立法会议的多数成员，并应该选举印度总督的立法会议的少数成员。在立法会议中为印度教徒和穆斯林保留着一定比例的代表席位，穆斯林的代表席位受到相当大的重压。例如，要成为一个有选举权的人，穆斯林在年收入达3，000卢比时须交纳所得税，而非穆斯林在年收入达300， 000卢比时才交纳所得税。此外，甚至在民选议员占多数的地方，如在省议会中，英国政府能够并准备着制服任何反对。因而，这些改革的目的决不是引进责任政府制。相反，它们的意图是允许存在代议制政府的一个成分，而把全部权力和最后决定留在英国人手中。莫利本人在上议院的辩论中对此作了明确的阐述： 这一策略在很大程度上是成功的。已恢复对国大党的控制的温和的民族主义者通过了一项表示“对改革计划深深地、普遍地满意”的决议。1911年，他们得到进一步的安抚，因为这年英国人又作了另外几个让步，包括取消分裂孟加拉的不得人心的法令、释放某些政治犯以及提供大笔教育专款。因而，虽然个别的恐怖主义行动仍偶尔发生，但印度在1910至1914年间是比较平静的。 在整个这一时期中，民族主义运动基本上仅限于知识分子中间。诚然，国大党在它于1885年建立之后的25年中已有了显著发展。它的全体成员来自英属印度各地而不是如在原先情况下来自孟加拉和西海岸少数城市。不过，事实仍旧是，它几乎只是律师、记者、教师和商人的中产阶级运动。这些人更熟悉的是约翰·斯图尔特·穆勒、赫伯特·斯宾塞和查尔斯·达尔文，而不是他们在乡村的大批大批的同胞的痛苦、不满和愿望。很自然，在民族主义领袖和未受教育的农民之间没有什么友好关系。这一鸿沟继续存在到战后时期才由莫汉达斯·甘地越过。甘地之所以取得成功，是因为他意识到其人民的实质上的宗教观点，他宣传的不是抽象的政治观念，而是他已给了它们以政治含意的宗教概念（见第二十一章第五节）。 西方对印度的影响全然不同于它对俄国或中东的影响。在俄国的情况下，西方施加了决定性的文化和经济的影响，但是，俄国在政治和军事上仍然是强大的、独立的。另一方面，近东在经济和军事上受到西方的支配，不过，由于战略上的原因，奥斯曼帝国设法将它的独立一直保持到第一次世界大战以前。相反，印度在遇世纪后期和19世纪期间被英国彻底地征服。英国的统治在孟加拉维持了差不多二个世纪，在旁遮普维持了一个多世纪。因而，西方对印度的影响比对其他地区的影响更直接、更全面。印度人没有挑拣欧洲文明中对他们最有吸引力的那些成分的特权。他们不喜欢的某些东西被强加于他们，而他们赞赏的、希望采纳的另外一些东西则被拒绝给予他们。 在西方的军事技术方面可找到一个例子；印度人同俄国人、土耳其人、中国人及日本人一样，很想学习和利用西方的军事技术。事实上，印度王公聘用欧洲冒险家训练他们的军队，因此，从前混乱的封建队列让位于有纪律的部队。例如，旁遮普的锡克教徒建立了一支同央国人的军队一样训练有素并在火炮使用方面占优势的军队。最后，英国人取胜，不是由于纯粹的军事因素，而是由于他们的更大的经济资源、由于他们的与印度统治者中间的分裂形成鲜明对照的团结。一旦英国人取胜，印度人就不再能跟上西方的军事技术。英国人不允许印度人在军队方面上升到某一等级之上，完全不准印度人拥有炮兵部队和空军部队。因而，在这一军事领域以与其他非欧洲民族恰好相同的方法起程的印度人不得不由于西方的征服而遵循一种不同的模式。正如我们已看到的，在其他领域——经济、政治和文化领域，情况也是如此；结果，印度比亚洲其他任何主要地区更无选择地承受西方的影响。