BRITISH IDEOLOGIES

The British Empire used various ideologies to justify and organize its rule in India. These
ideologies did not develop independently but were shaped by social and political conditions.
Historian Shekhar Bandopadhyay highlights that the English, since their conquest of
Ireland, considered themselves as “New Romans,” with a mission to civilize backward
peoples. This mission expanded from the Atlantic in their "first empire” to Asia in their
“second empire.” After the Battle of Plassey, Thomas Metcalf notes, the British extended the
“White Man’s Burden” ideology to India, claiming it was their duty to ensure India’s prosperity
before seeking personal gains. However, governing such a vast land and legitimizing their
authority became major concerns. Their rule relied on military dominance, hierarchy, and
racial superiority. The Enlightenment further shaped British self-perception as “civilized”
compared to “backward” Orientals, justifying their policies as modern and progressive.

Initially, the East India Company adapted Indian practices by recognizing the Mughal
emperor’s authority, minting coins in his name, using Persian as the official language, and
administering Hindu and Muslim laws. Lord Clive promoted a “dual government,” leaving
criminal justice to Nawabi officials while managing civil and financial matters. However,
British policies gradually became more Anglicized.

Orientalism and British Policies in India:

The British East India Company’s rule in India began with minimal interference,
characterized by respect for the region’s customs and traditions. The Company recognized
the Mughal emperor’s symbolic authority, minted coins in his name, and governed according
to Hindu and Muslim laws in the courts. Robert Clive introduced the idea of a “double
government,” where criminal justice remained under Nawabi officials while the Company
managed civil and financial matters. This system demonstrated the early British approach of
blending with existing structures, a policy Shekhar Bandopadhyay described as the British
acting as “inheritors rather than innovators,” aiming to revive what they saw as India’s
decayed system.

The notion of a "decayed system" stemmed’ from the British belief that India had a glorious
past that had deteriorated over time. This perspective spurred interest in India’s culture and
traditions, laying the groundwork for Orientalism. Orientalist scholars like Sir William Jones
delved into Indian languages and legal systems, aspiring to restore these traditions to the
Indian people. Jones’s discovery of linguistic links between Sanskrit, Greek, and Latin
elevated India’s historical significance, aligning it with the classical West. Institutions like
the Calcutta Madrasa (1781), the Asiatic Society of Bengal (1784), and the Sanskrit college
in Banaras (1794) were established to study Indian culture and scriptures. However, these
efforts were shaped by the British and defined by their perspectives, with limited
involvement from Indians.

Edward Said criticized Orientalism as a tool imposed by colonial powers to serve their
interests, creating knowledge that legitimized their dominance. Eugene Irschick offered a
different view, arguing that Orientalism emerged through dialogue between British officials,
Indian scholars, and local informants. However, Irschick admitted that Indians rarely
influenced the final outcomes, and the primary goal of Orientalism remained to produce
knowledge about India’s past to meet the colonial state’s administrative needs.

During the early phase of Orientalism, Warren Hastings championed the idea of governing
India according to its own laws. This approach required a deep understanding of Indian
society, a process Gauri Viswanathan termed “reverse acculturation,” where British
officials assimilated Indian knowledge to better govern the population. Fort William College,
established in 1800, became a center for training British civil servants in Indian languages
and traditions. Thomas Trautmann argued that this approach was partly driven by a moral
obligation to rule India with care. However, this respect for Indian traditions also reinforced
ideas of India’s decline, justifying British authoritarian rule under the guise of development.

With Lord Cornwallis, a shift occurred toward further Anglicization. Rejecting Hastings’
policies, Cornwallis introduced reforms inspired by Whig principles, focusing on
modernizing governance. He separated the judiciary from the executive and
emphasized protecting private property rights. Cornwallis’s Permanent Settlement in
Bengal centralized sovereignty and introduced fixed land revenue, intending to modernize
India by aligning it with European systems. These reforms were based on the belief that
Indians needed liberation from “Oriental despotism,” a concept that depicted Indian
governance as arbitrary and despotic. Ironically, this justification for reform reinforced the
paternalism of British rule.

Not all administrators agreed with Cornwallis’s vision. Thomas Munro and his supporters,
such as John Malcolm and Charles Metcalfe, critiqued the Permanent Settlement for
its lack of compatibility with Indian traditions. Munro introduced the Ryotwari Settlement,
inspired by Tipu Sultan’s fiscal policies, aiming to preserve Indian communities while
adapting governance to local contexts. Burton Stein described Munro’s approach as one of
indirect administration, where traditional Indian governance could thrive under the guidance
of knowledgeable and sympathetic British officials. Despite its respect for Indian systems,
this paternalism excluded Indians from direct political engagement.
By the 19th century, new intellectual currents in Britain emphasized progress and reform,
influencing policies in both India and Britain. While the early British administration in India
began with a paternalistic respect for local traditions, it evolved into a more interventionist
approach. The ideological underpinnings of Orientalism, initially framed as a means to
understand and govern India, ultimately served the colonial state’s goal of maintaining
control while projecting the image of benevolent rulers fostering development.

During the Industrial Revolution of the 1800s, Britain sought to connect its economy with
India, using the country both as a source of raw materials and a market for finished goods.
At the same time, new intellectual movements, especially Utilitarianism and
Evangelicalism, pushed for reforms in both Britain and its colonies. These ideologies brought
significant changes to British governance in India, challenging the earlier mercantile
approach and promoting the idea that Britain should remain in India permanently to reform
its society and economy.

Evangelicalism: A Mission to Transform

Evangelicals believed that British control of India had been achieved through unjust means
and saw reforms as a moral responsibility. Charles Grant, a leading Evangelical, argued that
India’s problems stemmed from ignorance caused by its religious beliefs, which could be
remedied by spreading Christianity. He claimed that converting Indians to Christianity would
bring material benefits and strengthen their liberty under British rule. Missionaries,
especially those based in Srirampur near Calcutta, supported this view, pushing for
Anglicization and assimilation policies.

These efforts led to the passage of the Charter Act of 1813, which allowed Christian
missionaries to freely operate in India. William Wilberforce played a key role in Parliament,
advocating for these changes. Evangelicals saw their mission as both spiritual and
civilizational, believing that India could only progress under permanent British guidance.

Utilitarianism: The Civilizing Mission

The ideology of Utilitarianism, which emerged in the late 18 th and early 19th centuries, had a
profound influence on British policies in India. Rooted in the philosophy that the “greatest
happiness for the greatest number” should guide societal decisions, Utilitarianism
emphasized rational, systematic reforms that were believed to improve the overall welfare
of society. British administrators, particularly those who adhered to Utilitarian principles,
applied this ideology to shape colonial governance in India, affecting the legal, social, and
economic landscape of the region.

Legal Reforms and Administrative Pragmatism

One of the most significant areas where Utilitarianism impacted British policies was in the
legal and administrative reforms. Figures like James Mill, who served in the British East India
Company, championed the idea that a rational and uniform legal system should replace the
traditional Indian systems.

Under Macaulay’s leadership, the Law Commission was established in 1833 to create a
unified legal framework for India. This led to the drafting of the Indian Penal Code in 1835,
based on Jeremy Bentham’s principles of rational and centralized governance. This period
saw a shift in British administration from idealistic reforms to pragmatic governance. The
focus was now on creating a stable and efficient government supported by the bureaucratic
“steel frame” of British officials.

The introduction of the Indian Penal Code (1860), the Criminal Procedure Code, and the
Civil Procedure Code were direct outcomes of this utilitarian approach. These legal reforms
were intended to create a system of justice that would be impartial, efficient, and based on
rational principles. While this was meant to benefit the broader population, the reforms were
also designed to consolidate British control and suppress any local customs that did not
align with Western values of law and order.

While the British justified their presence in India as a civilizing mission, this rationale also
served to mask their exploitation of the region. According to historians, this mission glorified
a history of greed and aggression while providing a sense of purpose to British
administrators.

Social Reforms

In the realm of social reforms, Utilitarianism justified several policies aimed at transforming
Indian society. British thinkers like Bentham and Mill argued that social progress could
only be achieved by curbing practices that were seen as harmful or backward.
Consequently, the British government introduced measures such as the **abolition of sati**
(the practice of widow burning) and the promotion of female education. These actions were
justified on the grounds that they would promote the welfare of Indian women and society at
large, even though they were often carried out with little regard for local customs and
traditions. While these reforms were progressive in their own right, they were frequently
imposed in a top-down manner, with little consultation or respect for the views of the Indian
people.

Utilitarianism also shaped British economic policies in India, particularly in terms of

infrastructure development. British administrators argued that constructing railways, roads,
and telegraphs would lead to greater economic efficiency and improve the overall welfare of
the country. These infrastructural projects were touted as benefiting India by facilitating
trade, communication, and economic growth. However, it is important to note that these
developments were also designed to serve British interests, facilitating the movement of
goods and troops to support colonial exploitation. The economic policies, while creating
some benefits, were ultimately geared toward enhancing British control over Indian
resources and wealth.

In his book From Plassey to Partition: A History of Modern India (2004), Bandopadhyay
highlights how British officials like James Mill and Bentham promoted Utilitarian policies that
restructured Indian society along Western lines. Bandopadhyay stresses that while these
policies, such as the introduction of a uniform legal system and the abolition of practices
like sati, were framed as progressive reforms aimed at improving social welfare, they were
often imposed without genuine local consultation and disregarded the complexity of Indian
society.

Moreover, the economic policies driven by Utilitarian thinking often led to the exploitation of
Indian resources. The construction of railways and roads, although beneficial in some ways,
was also aimed at facilitating the extraction of raw materials and the movement of British
troops. This economic system was structured to benefit the colonial powers rather than the
Indian people, reinforcing the unequal power dynamics of the British Empire.

C.A. Bayly, in his book Indian Society and the Making of the British Empire (1988), argues
that Utilitarian reforms served not only to improve governance but to strengthen colonial
control. The British utilized Utilitarian principles to rationalize administrative and legal
reforms that ultimately served imperial interests, such as the construction of infrastructure
and the consolidation of British dominance.

Diverse Goals, Unified Action

Despite differences in ideology, the Orientalists, Evangelicals, and Utilitarians shared a

common purpose: building and maintaining the British Empire in India. Orientalists like
William Jones focused on preserving India’s traditions, Evangelicals like Charles Grant
aimed to save Indian souls through Christianity, and Utilitarians like James Mill sought moral
and material improvement. These diverse ideas collectively supported Britain’s overarching
mission of control and reform in India, shaping the colonial state and its policies.

In conclusion, the interplay of Evangelical and Utilitarian ideas led to significant changes in
British policies, emphasizing reform and efficiency. However, these reforms often excluded
Indian participation, reinforcing British dominance under the guise of a civilizing mission.
While their methods and motivations differed, these ideologies unified in serving the British
Empire’s broader goal of sustaining its rule in India.