In known history, among those who came to India as invaders, the Shakas, Huns, Kushans, Muslims, Dutch, Portuguese, French, English, etc. are prominent. Among these, for the longest time, various Muslim dynasties ruled over different parts of India. These people were extremely cruel and gruesome. The tortures they inflicted upon Indians are hard to find examples of anywhere else. The ones who cut off the head of the Vijayanagara emperor Raja Ram Raya and placed it at the mouth of a flowing drain — these were the same people. The ones who gouged out the eyes of Chhatrapati Sambhaji Maharaj, flayed his skin, and killed him barbarically — these were the same people. The ones who sawed Bhai Mati Das Ji into two, and beheaded Guru Tegh Bahadur Ji — these were the same people. The ones who had the sons of Guru Gobind Singh Ji bricked alive into a wall — these were the same people.
Therefore, when the English came as traders and became rulers, they seemed better to Indians in comparison to the Muslim rulers. In the beginning, the English rulers did not display the same cruelty and brutality as the Muslim rulers, so the perception of “The English are good” began to grow. On top of that, the education system the English created kept glorifying the English. The notion was built that “The English are improving a backward country like India, and doing good for it.” Unfortunately, even after independence, the curriculum that was created continued to strengthen this perception..!
But — did the English actually come with the supreme goal of improving India? Were the English true believers in democracy, worshippers of justice?
Were the English just, peace-loving, civilized, cultured? Such things have been written about them. They have been said many times.
But what is the truth?
What was the real face of the English?
Completely opposite to this fabricated image of the English.
In 1757, after victory in the Battle of Plassey, the English got an open road to rule Bengal. After the 1765 Battle of Buxar, the East India Company officially began collecting revenue from Bengal.
Within the next four years, a terrible famine struck Bengal. About one-third of Bengal’s population at the time, that is, around one crore (ten million) Indians, died in this famine. These deaths were due to starvation and to the excesses committed by the English. The English made no attempt to save the people or rescue them from the famine. On the contrary, they collected revenue from the poor farmers who had survived, with great harshness.
There is an American writer named Mike Davis. Along with being a writer, he is also a political activist. Davis, who has received numerous awards, is a professor in the Creative Writing department at the University of California. One of his well-known books is “Late Victorian Holocausts: El Niño Famines and the Making of the Third World.” Published in 2001, in this book he has also written about the famines in India. He writes, “In the 120 years between 1770 and 1890, there were 31 major famines in India. And before that, in a full two thousand years, the number of major famines was only 17!
That is, the English not only failed to make arrangements to fight famines, but on the contrary, they destroyed the traditional Indian systems, which were nature-based and worked to prevent famines from occurring. On top of that, even in such adverse conditions, the cruelty of the English was evident. Revenue was collected from the poor, from farmers, with extreme ruthlessness.
According to Mike Davis, in the three years from 1876 to 1878, during the famine in the Bombay and Madras Presidencies, 60 to 80 lakh (6 to 8 million) Indians died. A few years later, in 1896–1897, another famine occurred in the Bombay and Madras Presidencies, as well as in the United Provinces and Bengal. In that famine, more than five million people died. The same story was repeated in the famine of 1899–1900 in the Bombay Presidency and CP–Berar.
In short, the cycle of famines continued under British rule. But the English never changed their brutal policies. The control of governance passed from the East India Company directly into the hands of Queen Victoria. But instead of decreasing, the cruelty of the English increased.
By the time 1943 arrived, the scenario had changed considerably. The Second World War was at its peak. More than three million Indian soldiers were fighting shoulder to shoulder with the English in various parts of the world against their enemies. This was the year of the Bengal famine. It was a dreadful famine. People were desperate for every single grain. In those days, Winston Churchill was the Prime Minister of England. He sent whatever grain was left in Bengal, ship after ship, to Yugoslavia — for his soldiers! In this famine, more than three million Indians died. On this, Churchill said, “I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion. The famine was their own fault because they breed like rabbits.”
A historian named William Torrens, who was a member of Parliament in England, wrote a book called “Empire in Asia.” In this book, after the death of the Nawab of Awadh, Shuja-ud-Daula (that is, after 1775), the English looted his begums (widows) with extreme savagery — this is described (pages 126–128). The amusing fact is that Shuja-ud-Daula had entrusted the care of his begums to the English with great trust. Therefore, to give this loot/robbery a constitutional cover, the English involved the then Chief Justice, Sir Elijah Impey. This judge came from Calcutta and, together with the King of Kashi, Chet Singh, accused the widowed begums of Faizabad of waging war against the English. Then the English surrounded the palaces of Faizabad. The begums were told, “You are prisoners. Hand over all your jewelry, gold, silver, and jewels to us.” When the begums refused, their servants were tortured to death and starved. They were given terrible punishments. The begums were not even allowed to drink water.
After seeing their servants die cruel deaths, the begums of Faizabad handed over their entire treasure — stored in chest after chest — to the English. At that time, its value was estimated to be more than one crore twenty lakh rupees. Across India, there are hundreds of such incidents where there is direct evidence of the loot and robbery committed by the English. All these events tear apart the image of the English as being just.
An officer of the East India Company, Henry Thomas Colebrooke, wrote a letter to his father in England on 28 July 1788. Sunderlal Ji, who wrote the book “Bharat Mein Angrezi Raj” (“British Rule in India”), has quoted this letter in his book. Colebrooke writes, “Mr. Hastings (Governor-General Warren Hastings) has filled this country with such collectors and judges whose sole aim is to make money. As soon as these vultures were let loose upon the land, they began looting the people of India — sometimes on some pretext, sometimes without any pretext at all.”
Later, Colebrooke, who became a scholar of Sanskrit, further writes, “The diplomacy of Warren Hastings and his shameless treachery did not affect only kings and big people. Seizing the estates of landlords, looting begums, exterminating the Rohillas… all this might perhaps be forgotten. But the atrocities he committed in Gorakhpur will forever remain a stain on the name of the British race.”
Sunderlal Ji has written in detail about this subject in his book “Bharat Mein Angrezi Raj.”
About these atrocities in Gorakhpur, in the book “History of British India,” historian James Mill writes that in 1778, Warren Hastings removed one of his officers, Colonel Hannay, from the Company’s service and sent him to the Nawab of Awadh. By pressuring the Nawab, the civil and military administration of the Bahraich and Gorakhpur districts was placed under Colonel Hannay. James Mill further writes, “This whole area was very prosperous under the Nawab’s rule. But due to Colonel Hannay’s atrocities, within three years this whole area became deserted.”
This incident has been described in detail by Syed Najmul Raza Rizvi in his book “Gorakhapur Civil Rebellion in Persian Historiography.” In protest against this Colonel Hannay, a large public movement arose in Gorakhpur, which the English called a “rebellion,” and later crushed with great brutality.
The revenue collected from Gorakhpur district, in those days, was six to eight lakh rupees annually. But in 1780, Colonel Hannay, with great cruelty, collected 14,56,088 rupees from this district. That is, almost double the annual revenue! One can imagine with what barbarity he must have tortured the poor farmers to extract this amount. Landlords used to get 20% of the revenue to maintain order in their areas. This came to about one and a half lakh rupees. But Colonel Hannay, after collecting fourteen and a half lakhs, gave the landlords only fifty thousand rupees!
This entire revenue did not go into the East India Company’s account. These officers divided and consumed it among themselves.
The Gorakhpur incident was not an exception. The same picture was seen throughout the country. First in Bengal, and after 1818, in the entire country, British administration was more or less like this. There was no hearing of this injustice anywhere. And if petitions for justice were repeatedly filed, then a mockery of a hearing would be held, and all the English officers would be declared innocent.
(To be continued)
— Prashant Pole
(From the book Vinashparva)
#Vinashparva
Prashant Pole is a renowned national thinker, philosopher, and writer. By profession an engineer (I.T. and Telecom) and a management consultant, Prashant Pol has published several books on India’s freedom struggle, ancient civilization, and culture.
