GS Notes

1.2.3 - Modern Indian History Notes 14

23 min read

Elaborate Notes

The Anglo-Mysore Wars

The rise of Mysore under Haider Ali and later Tipu Sultan in the latter half of the 18th century presented a formidable challenge to the burgeoning power of the English East India Company (EIC) in South India. This rivalry culminated in four major wars.

  • Reasons for Animosity and Rivalry:

    • Political Ambition: The Mysore state, under Haider Ali (c. 1720-1782) and Tipu Sultan (1750-1799), aimed for political hegemony over South India. This ambition directly clashed with the interests of its neighbours: the Marathas, the Nizam of Hyderabad, the Nawab of Carnatic, and the Raja of Travancore, all of whom sought to maintain or expand their own spheres of influence.
    • Mercantilist Competition: Mysore controlled the lucrative trade of pepper and cardamom from the Malabar coast. Tipu Sultan, in particular, sought to establish a state monopoly over this trade and forge direct commercial links with powers in the Middle East and France, bypassing the EIC. This challenged the Company’s commercial supremacy, a core component of its power. As historian Prasannan Parthasarathi argues in The Transition to a Colonial Economy (2001), Mysore’s economic policies were a direct threat to the EIC’s profit motives.
    • Military Fiscalism: Both Mysore and the EIC employed a system of ‘military fiscalism’. This concept, explored by historian Burton Stein, describes a state structure where resources extracted from land revenue and trade are primarily used to fund a modern, disciplined, and technologically advanced military. Mysore, with French assistance, developed a formidable army with European-style infantry and advanced artillery (including rockets), creating a military peer-competitor to the EIC. This similarity in state-building strategy made conflict almost inevitable.
    • Shifting Alliances: The political landscape was fluid. The Marathas and the Nizam of Hyderabad frequently switched allegiances. Initially, they viewed Mysore as a greater threat and allied with the British. However, a brief but significant grand alliance of Mysore, the Marathas, and Hyderabad was forged against the EIC in 1780. This was largely orchestrated by the astute Maratha statesman Nana Fadnavis, who was among the first Indian leaders to grasp the full extent of British imperial ambitions. This alliance, however, was short-lived. The British skillfully used diplomacy, signing the Treaty of Salbai (1782) with the Marathas and returning the Guntur district to the Nizam, thereby isolating Mysore once again.

  • The Four Anglo-Mysore Wars:

    1. First Anglo-Mysore War (1767-69): Haider Ali, demonstrating superior military tactics, inflicted a series of defeats on the British and reached the gates of Madras. The war concluded with the Treaty of Madras (1769), a defensive pact which stipulated mutual aid in case of an attack by a third party. This was a humiliating treaty for the EIC.
    2. Second Anglo-Mysore War (1780-84): The EIC reneged on the Treaty of Madras when the Marathas attacked Mysore in 1771. The war began with Haider Ali’s invasion of the Carnatic. After Haider’s death from cancer in 1782, Tipu Sultan continued the war. With the American War of Independence concluding, French support for Mysore waned. The war ended inconclusively with the Treaty of Mangalore (1784), which restored the status quo ante bellum (restitution of each other’s territories).
    3. Third Anglo-Mysore War (1790-92): Triggered by Tipu’s attack on Travancore, a British ally, this war saw Governor-General Lord Cornwallis leading a ‘Triple Alliance’ of the British, the Nizam, and the Marathas. Tipu was defeated. The Treaty of Seringapatam (1792) was imposed, under which Mysore ceded half its territory (including Malabar, Dindigul, and Baramahal) to the allies, paid a massive war indemnity of over 3 crore rupees, and surrendered two of his sons as hostages.
    4. Fourth Anglo-Mysore War (1799): Lord Wellesley, an arch-imperialist, used Tipu’s correspondence with Napoleon as a pretext for war. A swift, decisive campaign culminated in the siege and capture of Seringapatam. Tipu Sultan died fighting heroically, an event immortalized in British art and literature. The kingdom was dismantled; the EIC annexed key coastal and strategic territories (Canara, Coimbatore), the core was given back to the old Wodeyar dynasty, who were forced to sign the Subsidiary Alliance, effectively making Mysore a client state.

Consolidation of British Power in the South

  • Travancore: After the reigns of powerful rulers like Martanda Varma and Rama Varma, British influence grew. Following a revolt by Nair troops in 1805 over pay, the state was compelled to sign a Subsidiary Alliance treaty with Wellesley. The intrusive conduct of the British Resident, Colonel Macaulay, and the heavy financial burden of the alliance led to a major revolt in 1809 led by the Diwan (Prime Minister), Velu Thampi. His Kundara Proclamation called for a mass uprising to oust the British. The rebellion was brutally crushed.
  • Carnatic: The Nawab of Carnatic had been a British protectorate since the mid-18th century, accumulating vast debts to the Company. In 1801, Lord Wellesley used the pretext of discovering treasonous correspondence between the late Nawab Muhammad Ali and Tipu Sultan to annex the territory outright, ending the nominal rule of the Nawab.

The Anglo-Maratha Wars

The decline of the Maratha Confederacy, plagued by internal dissensions, paved the way for British ascendancy in the Deccan and Central India.

  • Context: The Maratha Confederacy was a complex political formation of five major powers: the Peshwa (at Pune), the Gaekwads (at Baroda), the Holkars (at Indore), the Scindias (at Gwalior), and the Bhonsles (at Nagpur). The death of the capable Peshwa Madhavrao I in 1772 triggered a power struggle.
  • First Anglo-Maratha War (1775-82):
    • Cause: The internal struggle for the Peshwaship between the infant Madhavrao II (supported by Nana Fadnavis and the ‘Barbhai’ council) and the ambitious Raghunath Rao (Raghoba). Raghoba signed the Treaty of Surat (1775) with the Bombay government of the EIC, promising Salsette and Bassein in exchange for military support.
    • Events: The Calcutta Council under Governor-General Warren Hastings annulled the treaty, sending his own envoy to sign the Treaty of Purandar (1776). However, the Bombay government’s actions had already precipitated war. The Marathas, under Mahadji Scindia, inflicted a humiliating defeat on the British at Wadgaon (1779). The war dragged on until the Treaty of Salbai (1782) was signed. It largely restored the status quo, with the British retaining Salsette. It secured peace for 20 years, during which the British consolidated their power elsewhere, particularly against Mysore.
  • Second Anglo-Maratha War (1803-05):
    • Cause: The death of Nana Fadnavis in 1800 removed a unifying figure, intensifying infighting. After being defeated by Yashwantrao Holkar, the Peshwa Baji Rao II fled and signed the Treaty of Bassein (1802) with the British. This treaty was a subsidiary alliance that effectively surrendered Maratha independence, a fact that historian Grant Duff noted meant “placing the British as the controlling power in India.”
    • Events & Result: The Scindia and Bhonsle chiefs challenged this treaty but were decisively defeated by British forces under Arthur Wellesley (at Assaye) and Lord Lake (at Delhi and Laswari). They were forced to sign subsidiary alliances (Treaty of Surji-Anjangaon with Scindia, Treaty of Deogaon with Bhonsle), ceding vast territories including Orissa, Delhi, and Agra. The Maratha dream of a pan-Indian empire was shattered.
  • Third Anglo-Maratha War (1817-19):
    • Cause: This was the final, decisive conflict. It was precipitated by the aggressive imperialist policy of Paramountcy under Governor-General Lord Hastings. The British campaign against the Pindaris (irregular military plunderers associated with the Marathas) was seen as an infringement of Maratha sovereignty. Peshwa Baji Rao II made a last attempt to rally the Maratha chiefs against the British.
    • Result: The Marathas were completely defeated. The Peshwaship was abolished, and Baji Rao II was pensioned off to Bithur near Kanpur. The bulk of the Peshwa’s territories (Swarajya) were annexed and incorporated into the Bombay Presidency. The remaining Maratha states were reduced to fully subordinate princely states. By 1819, the EIC had established undisputed dominance over India south of the Sutlej river.

The Doctrine of Paramountcy and Dalhousie’s Annexations

  • Policy of Paramountcy (from 1813): Articulated by Lord Hastings, this policy marked a fundamental shift in the EIC’s relationship with Indian states. It moved beyond the subsidiary alliance system, which notionally respected the internal sovereignty of states. Paramountcy asserted that the British were the supreme or ‘paramount’ power in India. This gave them a self-proclaimed right to interfere in the internal affairs of any Indian state, and even annex them, to protect what they defined as their paramount interests. It rendered the theoretical sovereignty of Indian states meaningless.
  • Lord Dalhousie (1848-56) and Imperial Expansion: Dalhousie was an ardent expansionist who used the policy of paramountcy to its fullest extent to consolidate the British empire. His methods included:
    • War: The Second Anglo-Sikh War (1848-49) led to the annexation of Punjab. The Second Anglo-Burmese War (1852) resulted in the annexation of Lower Burma (Pegu).
    • Doctrine of Lapse: This was Dalhousie’s most controversial tool. It stipulated that if the ruler of a dependent state died without a natural (biological) male heir, the state would ‘lapse’ or be annexed by the paramount power. The traditional Indian right of rulers to adopt an heir was not recognized for the purpose of succession. The states annexed under this doctrine include:
      • Satara (1848)
      • Jaitpur and Sambalpur (1849)
      • Baghat (1850)
      • Udaipur (1852)
      • Jhansi (1853)
      • Nagpur (1854)
    • Pretext of Misgovernance: The most infamous case was the annexation of Awadh (Oudh) in 1856. Despite a century of alliance, Awadh was annexed on the grounds of chronic misrule by its ruler, Nawab Wajid Ali Shah. This was justified by the official reports of British officials like W.H. Sleeman. This action caused widespread resentment and is considered a major cause of the 1857 Revolt.
    • Other Annexations: In 1853, Berar was taken from the Nizam of Hyderabad to pay for the upkeep of the subsidiary force, showcasing the financial trap of the alliance system.

Prelims Pointers

  • First Anglo-Mysore War (1767-69): Ended with the Treaty of Madras.
  • Second Anglo-Mysore War (1780-84): Ended with the Treaty of Mangalore. Haider Ali died during this war (1782).
  • Third Anglo-Mysore War (1790-92): Ended with the Treaty of Seringapatam. Led by Governor-General Cornwallis.
  • Fourth Anglo-Mysore War (1799): Led by Governor-General Wellesley. Tipu Sultan was killed. Wodeyar dynasty was restored under a Subsidiary Alliance.
  • Velu Thampi: Diwan of Travancore who led a revolt against the British in 1809.
  • Kundara Proclamation (1809): Call to arms against the British by Velu Thampi.
  • Annexation of Carnatic: 1801, by Lord Wellesley.
  • First Anglo-Maratha War (1775-82): Key treaties are Treaty of Surat (1775), Treaty of Purandar (1776), and ended with the Treaty of Salbai (1782).
  • Second Anglo-Maratha War (1803-05): Key cause was the Treaty of Bassein (1802), a subsidiary alliance with Peshwa Baji Rao II. Key battles: Assaye, Laswari.
  • Third Anglo-Maratha War (1817-19): Led by Governor-General Lord Hastings. Resulted in the abolition of the Peshwaship.
  • Policy of Paramountcy: Initiated by Lord Hastings around 1813.
  • Lord Dalhousie’s tenure: 1848-1856.
  • States annexed via Doctrine of Lapse (with year):
    1. Satara (1848)
    2. Sambalpur (1849)
    3. Baghat (1850)
    4. Udaipur (1852)
    5. Jhansi (1853)
    6. Nagpur (1854)
  • Annexation of Awadh: 1856, on grounds of misgovernance.
  • Annexation of Punjab: 1849, after the Second Anglo-Sikh War.
  • Annexation of Berar: 1853, from the Nizam of Hyderabad.

Mains Insights

  • Indian Disunity as a Facilitator of British Conquest: A recurring theme in the Anglo-Mysore and Anglo-Maratha wars is the inability of Indian powers to form a sustained, united front against the EIC. The ‘Triple Alliance’ of the British, Marathas, and the Nizam against Mysore is a classic example. Similarly, the internal factionalism within the Maratha Confederacy (e.g., Holkar vs. Scindia and Peshwa) was skillfully exploited by the British, particularly by Wellesley. This highlights a critical cause-effect relationship: internal rivalry among Indian states directly contributed to their piecemeal subjugation.

  • Evolution of British Imperial Policy: The British approach to expansion evolved significantly from 1760 to 1857.

    1. Ring-Fence Policy (early phase): Primarily defensive, aimed at protecting Company territories by defending the frontiers of their neighbours.
    2. Subsidiary Alliance (Wellesley): An offensive policy disguised as a defensive one. It allowed the EIC to maintain a large army at the expense of Indian states, control their foreign policy, and place a Resident at their court, effectively crippling them without outright annexation. It was a “masterstroke of bloodless conquest.”
    3. Policy of Paramountcy (Hastings & Dalhousie): This was an open assertion of British supremacy. It discarded the fiction of sovereign equality and claimed a unilateral right to interfere and annex, as seen in the Doctrine of Lapse and the annexation of Awadh. This transition reflects the growing confidence and unchecked power of the EIC in India.

  • Historiographical Debate on Tipu Sultan: There are contrasting views on Tipu.

    • Colonial Historiography: Portrayed him as a ‘religious fanatic’ and an ‘oriental despot’ to justify the wars against him.
    • Nationalist/Revisionist Historiography: Scholars like B. Sheik Ali and Mohibbul Hasan view him as a proto-nationalist, a patriot who fiercely defended his independence. They highlight his administrative and economic innovations (new calendar, coinage, state-run industries) and his modernizing military as evidence of a visionary ruler who understood the nature of the British threat.

  • Dalhousie’s Annexations and the Revolt of 1857: Dalhousie is often called the ‘maker of modern India’ for his administrative reforms (railways, telegraph, postal system). However, his annexation policies were a direct cause of the Great Revolt of 1857.

    • Doctrine of Lapse: Created a sense of insecurity among all ruling families (e.g., Nana Saheb, the adopted son of the last Peshwa; Rani of Jhansi).
    • Annexation of Awadh: This was particularly damaging. Awadh was the ‘nursery of the Bengal Army’, and a majority of its sepoys came from there. The annexation dismantled the traditional social order, dispossessed the talukdars (landholders), and was seen as a grave act of betrayal, deeply offending the religious and professional sentiments of the sepoys. This direct link between annexationist policy and popular discontent is a crucial analytical point for GS Paper I.

Previous Year Questions

Prelims

  1. Consider the following statements: (UPSC Prelims 2021)

    1. The Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms of 1919 recommended granting voting rights to all women above the age of 21.
    2. The Government of India Act of 1935 gave women reserved seats in legislature. Which of the statements given above is/are correct? (a) 1 only (b) 2 only (c) Both 1 and 2 (d) Neither 1 nor 2

    Answer: (b) Explanation: Statement 1 is incorrect. The Montagu-Chelmsford reforms did not grant universal adult franchise; franchise was limited based on property, tax, or education, and it was left to the provincial legislatures to decide on women’s suffrage. Statement 2 is correct. The Government of India Act, 1935, provided for reserved seats for women in legislatures.

  2. With reference to the history of India, consider the following pairs: (UPSC Prelims 2020)

    1. Aurang - In-charge of treasury of the State
    2. Banian - Indian agent of the East India Company
    3. Mirasidar - Designated revenue payer to the State Which of the pairs given above is/are correctly matched? (a) 1 and 2 only (b) 2 and 3 only (c) 3 only (d) 1, 2 and 3

    Answer: (b) Explanation: ‘Aurang’ is a Persian term for a warehouse where goods are collected before export. So, pair 1 is incorrect. ‘Banian’ was the term for an Indian agent or broker working for the EIC. So, pair 2 is correct. ‘Mirasidar’ was used in South India for landholders with hereditary rights who were designated revenue payers. So, pair 3 is correct.

  3. Which one of the following is a very significant aspect of the Champaran Satyagraha? (UPSC Prelims 2018) (a) Active all-India participation of lawyers, students and women in the National Movement (b) Active involvement of Dalit and Tribal communities of India in the National Movement (c) Joining of peasant unrest to India’s National Movement (d) Drastic decrease in the cultivation of plantation crops and commercial crops

    Answer: (c) Explanation: The Champaran Satyagraha (1917) was the first major movement led by Mahatma Gandhi in India. Its most significant aspect was that it successfully connected the localised grievances of peasants (against the tinkathia system) with the broader national movement, setting a precedent for future mass-based agitations.

  4. Who among the following was/were associated with the introduction of Ryotwari Settlement in India during the British rule? (UPSC Prelims 2017)

    1. Lord Cornwallis
    2. Alexander Read
    3. Thomas Munro Select the correct answer using the code given below: (a) 1 only (b) 1 and 3 only (c) 2 and 3 only (d) 1, 2 and 3

    Answer: (c) Explanation: The Ryotwari system was first introduced by Captain Alexander Read in Baramahal district (an area taken from Mysore in 1792). It was later developed and extended to most of the Madras Presidency by Thomas Munro when he was governor. Lord Cornwallis is associated with the Permanent Settlement.

  5. Consider the following: (UPSC Prelims 2021)

    1. The Calcutta Unitarian Committee
    2. Tabernacle of New Dispensation
    3. Indian Reform Association Keshab Chandra Sen is associated with the establishment of which of the above? (a) 1 and 3 only (b) 2 and 3 only (c) 3 only (d) 1, 2 and 3

    Answer: (b) Explanation: Keshab Chandra Sen established the Tabernacle of New Dispensation (Naba Bidhan) in 1868 and the Indian Reform Association in 1870. The Calcutta Unitarian Committee was established earlier by Raja Ram Mohan Roy, Dwarkanath Tagore, and William Adam in 1823.

Mains

  1. Why did the armies of the British East India Company – mostly comprising of Indian soldiers – win consistently against the more numerous and better equipped armies of the Indian rulers? Give reasons. (UPSC Mains 2022)

    Answer Framework:

    • Introduction: Briefly state that despite being outnumbered, the EIC’s armies consistently defeated Indian forces due to a combination of superior military, organizational, and strategic factors.
    • Military Factors:
      • Superior Discipline and Training: EIC soldiers, both European and Indian (sepoys), were subject to rigorous, regular drill and a strict code of conduct, making them a more cohesive fighting force than the often feudal and irregular armies of Indian rulers.
      • Technological Edge: While Indian rulers like Tipu Sultan had modern artillery, the British generally had better and more standardized artillery (especially light field artillery) and musketry, along with a more efficient system of supply and maintenance.
      • Infantry Dominance: The British perfected the use of disciplined infantry firing in volleys, which could withstand and break cavalry charges, the mainstay of many Indian armies.
    • Organizational and Financial Factors:
      • Regular Pay and Financial Strength: The EIC had a regular and reliable system of paying its soldiers, which ensured loyalty. Indian rulers often had soldiers who were loyal to individual chieftains and whose pay was frequently in arrears, leading to indiscipline and desertions.
      • Military Fiscalism: The Company’s ability to extract revenue efficiently and its access to credit from London allowed it to sustain long campaigns, which Indian states found difficult to match.
    • Leadership and Strategic Factors:
      • Command Structure: The EIC had a professional and merit-based officer corps (e.g., Arthur Wellesley, Robert Clive). In contrast, leadership in Indian armies was often hereditary and prone to internal rivalries.
      • Lack of Indian Unity: The British were masters of ‘divide and rule’, skillfully exploiting the rivalries between Indian states (e.g., using the Nizam and Marathas against Mysore). Indian rulers rarely presented a united front.
    • Conclusion: Conclude that the British victory was not just due to military prowess but a result of a superior system—a system that combined financial strength, organizational discipline, and astute political strategy which the fragmented and feudal Indian political order could not withstand.

  2. The third battle of Panipat was fought in 1761. Why were so many empire-shaking battles fought at Panipat? (UPSC Mains 2018)

    Answer Framework:

    • Introduction: Briefly mention the three major battles of Panipat (1526, 1556, 1761) and state that their occurrence at this specific location was due to compelling strategic, geographical, and logistical reasons.
    • Strategic Location:
      • Gateway to the Heart of Hindustan: Panipat lies on the traditional invasion route into North India from the northwest (via the Khyber Pass). Any foreign invader aiming to capture Delhi, the political capital, had to pass through this region.
      • Proximity to Delhi: It was close enough to Delhi for the incumbent ruler to move their army out to confront the invader, yet far enough to prevent the capital from being immediately besieged.
    • Geographical and Topographical Features:
      • Flat Terrain: The vast, flat plains around Panipat were ideal for the movement of large armies and the deployment of cavalry and artillery, which were decisive in large-scale battles of that era.
      • River Yamuna: The proximity of the Yamuna River on the east protected the army’s flank and provided a vital source of water for the troops and animals, crucial for sustaining long campaigns.
    • Economic and Logistical Reasons:
      • Fertile Region: The surrounding region was part of the fertile Ganga-Yamuna doab, capable of providing supplies (food and fodder) for large armies.
      • Grand Trunk Road: Panipat was situated on the Grand Trunk Road, which was a major artery for transport and communication, facilitating the rapid movement of troops and supplies.
    • Political Context of the Third Battle (1761): Explain that the battle between the Marathas and Ahmad Shah Abdali was for control over the collapsing Mughal empire. The Marathas, expanding northwards, had to confront Abdali in this very region to assert their claim over Delhi and the Punjab.
    • Conclusion: Summarize that Panipat’s status as a battleground was not a coincidence but a result of its unique confluence of strategic, geographical, and logistical advantages that made it the “cockpit of North India.”

  3. Clarify how mid-eighteenth century India was beset with the spectre of a fragmented polity. (UPSC Mains 2017)

    Answer Framework:

    • Introduction: Explain that the mid-18th century (roughly 1740-1760s) was a period of profound political transformation marked by the terminal decline of the Mughal Empire and the rise of several regional successor states, leading to a fragmented and contested political landscape.
    • Decline of the Central Authority (Mughal Empire):
      • Post-Aurangzeb, the Mughal emperors became puppets (‘later Mughals’).
      • Invasions by Nadir Shah (1739) and Ahmad Shah Abdali (starting 1748) shattered the remaining prestige and military power of the empire, exposing its hollowness.
    • Rise of Successor States:
      • Independent Kingdoms: States that broke away completely, like Mysore under Haider Ali.
      • Autonomous States: States that acknowledged nominal Mughal suzerainty but were functionally independent. Examples include Bengal (under Murshid Quli Khan), Awadh (under Saadat Khan), and Hyderabad (under Nizam-ul-Mulk).
    • Emergence of New Powers:
      • The Marathas: The most formidable power, they expanded across Central and North India, creating a loose confederacy and challenging Mughal authority right up to Delhi.
      • The Sikhs: Consolidated power in Punjab under various misls, creating another center of power in the northwest.
      • The Jats: Carved out a state around Bharatpur under leaders like Suraj Mal.
    • Entry of Foreign Trading Companies:
      • The English and French East India Companies were no longer just traders. They began interfering in the succession disputes of Indian states (e.g., Carnatic and Hyderabad Wars) and transformed into major political and military players.
    • Nature of Fragmentation: The polity was not just divided, but characterized by constant warfare, shifting alliances, and a lack of any single paramount power capable of enforcing order. This created a power vacuum that the British East India Company was perfectly positioned to exploit.
    • Conclusion: Conclude that the mid-18th century was a period of flux where the old imperial order had collapsed and multiple regional powers were vying for supremacy. This fragmentation and internal conflict created the ideal conditions for a well-organized and politically astute foreign power like the EIC to establish its own empire.

  4. Examine the circumstances which led to the Third Battle of Panipat. (UPSC Mains GS-I 2021 Re-examination for a few candidates) Answer Framework:

    • Introduction: Briefly introduce the Third Battle of Panipat (1761) as a pivotal conflict between the Maratha Confederacy and Ahmad Shah Abdali’s Afghan forces, which had long-term consequences for the political trajectory of India.
    • The Power Vacuum in North India:
      • Detail the decline of the Mughal Empire after Aurangzeb, leaving a void.
      • Mention the invasions of Nadir Shah (1739) and Abdali, which destabilized the region and exposed Mughal weakness.
    • Maratha Imperial Ambitions:
      • Explain the northward expansion of the Marathas under Peshwa Balaji Baji Rao.
      • Describe their policy of collecting chauth and sardeshmukhi and their aim to establish a pan-Indian empire (‘Hindupad Padshahi’).
      • By 1752, the Marathas had become the protectors of the Mughal throne in Delhi through a treaty (Ahmadiya treaty), bringing them into direct conflict with other powers in the region.
    • The Afghan Factor:
      • Ahmad Shah Abdali sought to re-establish Afghan control over Punjab and protect the northwestern frontier, which he considered part of his domain.
      • The Marathas’ expulsion of Abdali’s governor, Timur Shah, from Lahore in 1758 was a direct challenge that made a major confrontation inevitable.
    • Formation of Alliances:
      • Abdali successfully forged an alliance with North Indian Muslim powers who were wary of Maratha dominance, including Najib-ud-Daula (the Rohilla chief) and Shuja-ud-Daula (the Nawab of Awadh).
      • The Marathas, under Sadashivrao Bhau, failed to secure crucial alliances. They alienated the Rajputs and Jats through their rapacious revenue policies and arrogant diplomacy. This diplomatic failure left them isolated in North India.
    • Immediate Causes:
      • Abdali’s invasion of India in 1759-60 to reclaim Punjab.
      • The Maratha grand army’s march north to confront Abdali and re-assert their authority.
    • Conclusion: The battle was the culmination of a decade-long struggle for supremacy in North India, fueled by the collapse of Mughal authority, the imperial ambitions of the Marathas, the strategic interests of Abdali, and critical diplomatic failures on the part of the Marathas.

  5. The process of colonization and the colonial conquest had a profound impact on the Indian society, economy, and polity. Elaborate. (UPSC Mains 2019-styled question)

    Answer Framework:

    • Introduction: State that British colonization was not merely a change of rulers but a transformative process that fundamentally restructured India’s society, economy, and polity to serve British imperial interests.
    • Impact on the Economy:
      • De-industrialization: The ruin of traditional Indian handicraft industries (especially textiles) due to discriminatory tariffs, competition from machine-made goods, and the disappearance of courtly patronage.
      • Commercialization of Agriculture: The emphasis on cash crops (indigo, cotton, opium) for export, often at the expense of food crops, increased rural indebtedness and vulnerability to famines.
      • New Land Revenue Systems: The Permanent Settlement, Ryotwari, and Mahalwari systems were designed to maximize revenue extraction. They created new classes of landlords (zamindars), destroyed traditional village communities, and led to land alienation.
      • Drain of Wealth: The systematic transfer of wealth from India to Britain through salaries, profits, and ‘home charges’ without any corresponding economic return for India, as articulated by Dadabhai Naoroji.
    • Impact on the Polity:
      • End of Indian Sovereignty: Subjugation of hundreds of princely states through wars and policies like the Subsidiary Alliance and Doctrine of Lapse, leading to the loss of political independence.
      • Introduction of a New Administrative and Judicial System: Creation of a centralized bureaucracy (the ‘steel frame’), a new police system, and a codified legal system based on British principles. While this created a unified administrative structure, it was designed to maintain colonial control, not to promote self-governance.
      • Absence of Political Representation: Indians were excluded from higher echelons of power and administration, leading to the rise of modern nationalism as a response.
    • Impact on Society:
      • Social Stratification: The colonial state often rigidified caste hierarchies and created new social divisions for administrative convenience.
      • Rise of a New Middle Class: The introduction of modern English education created a new class of English-educated Indians who worked in the colonial administration and professions. This class would later lead the nationalist movement.
      • Socio-Religious Reform Movements: The encounter with Western ideas and Christian missionaries, coupled with the critique of Indian society, spurred a wave of reform movements (e.g., Brahmo Samaj, Arya Samaj) that sought to modernize and reform Indian society from within.
    • Conclusion: Conclude that the colonial impact was a complex and largely negative one. While it inadvertently led to political unification and the introduction of some modern institutions, its primary legacy was economic exploitation, political subjugation, and social dislocation, which India continues to grapple with post-independence.

Graph View