Page 37 - DHIS204_DHIS205_INDIAN_FREEDOM_STRUGGLE_HINDI

Indian Freedom Struggle (1707–1947 A.D.)

Notes three may work incalculable mischief, but no one of them can do good if thwarted by others”. Karl
Marx wrote in 1853: “As to native states, they virtually ceased to exist from the moment they became
subsidiary to or protected by the Company. If you divide the revenue of a country between two
governments, you are sure to cripple the resources of one or the administration of both... the conditions
under which they are allowed to retain their apparent independence are, at the same time, the
conditions of permanent decay and an utter inability of improvement”. William Bentinck annexed
Mysore (1831), Cachar (1832), Coorg (1834), and Jaintia( 1835). Auckland annexed Karnul, Mandavi
(1839), Kolaba and Jalaun (1840). Dalhousie annexed about half a dozen Indian states including big
states like Nagpur, Satara and Oudh.

The Resident at Travancore was a savant and the Raja built an observatory and
maintained men of science.

Even after the establishment of the East India Company’s undisputed supremacy in 1818, the policy
of the East India Company vis-a-vis the Indian states was “chaotic, indefinite and contradictory.”
“The authorities of the East India Company” writes K.M. Pannikar, “were wavering with every passing
fancy as to whether the rulers were zamindars, feudatories, tributaries or independent sovereigns;
and each Governor-General and each Resident held and enforced his own views.” Sometimes a
Governor-General followed earlier precedents, at other times created new precedents. While a good
number of Indian states were annexed, some states like Khairpur in 1832, Bahawalpur in 1833, Kashmir
in 1846 were assured of the Company’s policy of non-intervention into the internal affairs of their
states Prof. Dodwell very aptly sums up the position thus: “Besides the rights vested by treaty in the
Company, there had arisen, under no sanction but that of superior power on the one side and reluctant
acquiescence on the other, a body of precedents relating to successions and to interference in the
internal administration of the states. Together these constituted the Company’s paramountcy—
undefined, undefinable, but always tending to expand under the strong pressure of political
circumstances.”

2.2 Development of the Central Structure (1773-1863)

1. The Rule of Law: The British deserve the credit for having introduced in India the modern concept
of the rule of law. This meant the end of arbitrary authority exercised by the earlier rulers of India.
A person could now know his rights and privileges and a set procedure was laid down for asserting
them.
2. Equality before Law: In the eyes of law all men were considered equal, irrespective of their religion,
caste or class. This meant the end of the earlier practice of varying the law according to the class and
status of the person, say between a Brahmin or a non-Brahmin or between a zamindar and a peasant.
Henceforth, under British administration, the humblest of the humble could move the court for his
legitimate rights. In actual practice, however, the principle of equality before law was violated when
laws became complicated and beyond the grasp of uneducated poor masses; they had to engage
lawyers who charged excessive fees and preferred to work for the rich; in addition, the prevalence
of corruption in the administrative machinery and the police worked against the rights of the masses.
3. Recognition of Personal Civil Law: The Company’s authorities recognised the rights of the various
Indian communities — Hindu, Muslim, Parsi or Christian — to be judged by law of their
community, particularly in matters connected with marriage, adoption, of joint family matters
like succession and partition of property.
4. Growth of trained judicial officers and professional lawyers: In pre-British times, the landlords
and the rulers played a notable role in deciding judicial disputes. In contrast, under Company’s
rule, written law (and later codified law) promoted confidence in the judicial system. The emergence
of a professional class of lawyers trained to defend the rights of their clients augued in the modern
system if judicial administration (of course, with all its limitations).

32 LOVELY PROFESSIONAL UNIVERSITY