Imperialist British India - Divide & Rule Tactic

British Raj Creates Divisions in Indian Society Leading to Violence

4 Comments
Join the Conversation
British Imperialists in India - wiki commons
British Imperialists in India - wiki commons
For the imperialist British Raj to rule in India they adopted divide & rule tactics, which encouraged divisions in Indian Society & eventually led to creation of Pakistan

As an option for ruling their massive holding in India, the British Raj operated what was perceived to be a tactic of divide and rule by many historians which, whilst paying off in the short term, gave massive impetus to the growth of violence and terrorism in India along religious and sectarian lines, culminating in the 'bloody' creation of the country of Pakistan.

Racial and Ethnic Stereotyping in British India

Whilst it is generally accepted that the British Raj encouraged division in Indian society along the lines of the caste system, the Victorian ethnologists also divided Indians into racial types with Dravidians as the most primitive (dark skins) and fair Indo Aryans, the higher and dominant castes, supposedly descended from the same racial stock as white Europeans

To the Victorian ethnologists, caste divisions in Indian society were an Indo Aryan invention to maintain the purity of their bloodline and retain the fair skin which was so prized as a mark of high status.

However, by the beginning of the twentieth century ethnologists, such as Ibbetson, were arguing tribal/ethnic affiliations, rather than caste, as the predominant divider within Indian society, with the capacity to move between castes possible, for example attainment of the high Rajput status, through the acquisition of land and power and the fact that women were able to move between castes by judicious marriage, and therefore enhance the status of their children.

Certainly, the tribal affiliation amongst the Sikh, Hindu and Muslims of the martial Jat group in the Punjab was strong enough for the formation of a Punjab Unionist Government which ruled the Punjab area for the twenty years leading up to 1947. Indeed it was not until the strength of the Muslim League and their election successes in 1946 forced Punjabi Jats to choose religious affiliation over ethnic grouping that the Punjab Unionist Government collapsed and all Punjab plunged into a state of civil war.

Imperialist British Raj Create Further Divisions in Indian Society

Indeed, Indian society as a whole was further divided by the Hindu, Muslim and Sikh religion, and once again the British created further artificial fractures within Indian society by taking advantage of religious differences within their tactics of controlling the Empire. The 1909 grant of separate electorates to Muslims is seen as an example of this by creating a political electorate based purely upon religious difference.

Whilst the British perceived the growing politicisation of India and the growth of the Indian National Congress with concern realising that this would be the downfall of British India, they felt that the creation of separate electorates for Muslims would allow them to remain in command longer. It is a rare politician indeed who divides a country and electorate upon religious grounds, due to awareness of the capacity for religion to cause animosities. Indeed, communal rifts between the Muslims and Hindus became commonplace occurrences throughout India after this.

Race for Creation of Muslim Homeland, Pakistan

It is hardly surprising that the division of the Indian electorate on sectarian grounds began the race to communalism, violence and terrorism which ended in the creation of a separate Pakistan for Muslim Indians.

In conclusion, the few examples above illustrate the fact that the British Raj utilised division within Indian society in order to maintain a semblance of control. To Winston Churchill, Viceroy Curzon and other empiricists, imperialist Britain was nothing without her Empire of which India was the “Jewel in the Crown” and although the British accepted that India would eventually achieve independence, this was certainly not anticipated for several hundred years.

Source:

Susan Bayly, Caste, Society and Politics in India from the Eighteenth Century to the Modern Age

Dawn Denmar, Own Camera

Dawn Denmar - Studying for a BA in Journalism and History, Dawn's innate curiosity about life has led to articles covering a range of topics and ...

rss
Advertisement
Leave a comment

NOTE: Because you are not a Suite101 member, your comment will be moderated before it is viewable.
Submit
What is 2+0?

Comments

Oct 8, 2009 8:41 AM
Guest :
'Divide and Rule' is an age old formula applied by all the rulers ever since the dawn and history of organisation of human race. We all use it as it suit us. Nothing new. But a better and lesser known mnemonic has been added by a brilliant scholar lately, i.e. 'Decieve and Rule'. It may be a better application to the British tactics that was used far more grievously during their tyranic regime in this country. I get a feeling that they have still not forgotten the fleeing away of their golden goose.

The current urest in this sub-continent is reminiscent of this legacy. Secondly, it is a business to keep war going to encourage their arms industry. One man's food may be a poison to other.



Mar 21, 2010 7:59 AM
Guest :
Muslims of India could not be controlled by the Hindu majority as Muslims have always ruled the Indians after their arrival in this part of the world. Besides, Hindus were too much obsessed to get complete power from the British Raj subjugating the minorities as per their will and wish. therefore, it was natural for Muslims to ask for a separate country. Now it is time that both countries realise and diffuse their differences and focus on the prosperity and development of their nations.
May 18, 2010 2:30 AM
Guest :
The teleological stance adopted by this article is something i find profoundly distressing. To trace a clear line between the establishment of separate electorates by the Morely-Minto reforms of 1909 and the eventual partition of India seems deliberately blinkered and naive.
You assert that the incidence of communal violence and its nature changes in the wake of the establishment of separate elections. I would disagree, violence between different portions of the Indian population has been commonplace in the sub-continent even before British participation in India. It is not the basis and nature of communal violence that has changed, rather, it is the political framework around which it is being played out.
Clearly British rule in India played a pivotal role in the shaping of Indian history but to ignore wider historical trends and the agency of human involvement in the inconceivably varied and complex geo-political entity that is India is as an historian deplorable.
Jan 27, 2012 4:57 AM
Guest :
imperialist not 'empiricist' which is concerning epistemology not empire.
4 Comments
Advertisement
Advertisement