Divide and Rule

Divide and Rule

                                        An account of a disputed topic by Syed Fazal Abbas

The idea that the British Raj pursued a policy of ‘Divide and Rule’ is probably the single most prevalent historiography. It was an idea whose time came, and never passed. It was a ‘catch-all’ and ‘explain-all’ idea that neatly accounted for the success of British policy in a way that left Indians with some dignity. Hence its adoption by everyone, from Arya Samajists like H. B. Sarda, to Congress theoreticians like Gandhi and Nehru.

The idea that ‘Divide and Rule’ actively, logically led on to Partition is a contrived and untenable idea. The words themselves are so seductive and easy to manipulate that they can capture receptive minds all too readily. But neat words do not necessarily reflect historical truth. So, although we can turn ‘Divide and Rule’ deftly into ‘Divide and Quit’, or a number of other damning formulations, this does not justify seeing these transformations as having any real correspondence to British policy. This needs some critical attention before we can pass on.Top of Form

NEARLY 70 years ago the Indian subcontinent was divided. A fifth of the territory and 17.5% of the people formed Pakistan. The rest became independent India. Departing British colonial authorities rushed the split. The result was a bloody mess. Pakistan proved ungainly from the start, composed of two distant Muslim-majority areas, separated by 1,100 miles (1,770km) as the crow flies. Muhammad Ali Jinnah, its first ruler, moaned that his country was “maimed and moth eaten”.

India was a great centre of attraction for British Empire. It was amazing to see how a small number of British troops led to  the downfall of Mughal Empire, achieved the conquest andruled over India for such a long time. For British rulers, India symbolized Imperial grandeur. They believed that Britain’s superpower status for most of the nineteenth century and some of the twentieth depended on their control over India.

Viceroy Lord Curzon had expressed it clearly in 1901, “As long as we rule India, we are the greatest power in the world. If we lose it we shall drop straightway to a third rate power”. Quite early, British realized that as long as they adroitly exploited the religious, linguistic and historical divisions that marked Indian society they were relatively safe.

British rulers were clear and firm about their aims and objectives. British Rulers inflamed the differences, that were already existent in the society because of the diverse backgrounds of its people. They established their Empire in India by playing off one part against the other.

Initially in order to justify their domination over dark races of the globe and imperial rule in India, British propagated theories of racial the superiority of ‘White-race’. Afterwards, British rulers, missionaries, philosophers, writers and Historians like Mill, Wilson or Ward  vehemently denounced the culture, character and social structure of the native people. This mental doze had affected minds of many educated Indians so densely that they considered native practices indefensible.

The British launched an ideological attack on Brahmins in their effort to secure a reasonable combination of various races and castes in administration and other modern callings. On one hand, to counter Brahmins hold in education and other areas, they slighted the role of Brahmins as Indian intelligentsia and reformers and on the other, portrayed them as oppressors and exploiters of others, especially the poor and minorities. The rulers created venom in the hearts of Muslims and non-Brahmin castes and encouraged them to resist vociferously the dominance of Brahmins in modern callings.With the start of British rule over India, the old relation of conqueror and conquered prevalent in India since 10th century, came to an end. It was the period of conquest, annexation and consolidation for British. Initially, the East India Company of Britain conquered and established British Empire in India by taking advantage of the diversities of Indian people. The Government adopted “Laissez-faire” as the principle of governance. Hence, it did not indulge itself into any welfare or social service activity. The only objective was to rule the country to its own advantage.

Between 1858 and 1905, the British adopted a policy of “Apparent Association”. In their heart, the rulers knew well that they had established their power by playing off one part against the other and intended to continue it in order to maintain it as long as possible. The purpose was to keep Indians busy with their internal problems and let them rule the country without any distraction. They were sure “…We must continue to do so. Do what you can, therefore, to prevent all having a common feeling”.

By 1858, when British Empirical rule was established firmly in India, the rulers started playing Indians against one another – princes against people; Hindu against Muslims; caste against castes; and provinces against provinces. British rulers adopted the policy of “Divide and rule”. They played Indian people against one another – princes against people; Hindu against Muslims; caste against castes; and provinces against provinces.

After 1940 – During Second World War period, they decided to quit India. Even then, British rulers played their game and divided the country into two – India and Pakistan. Their exploitative policies had already drained much of India’s wealth. Now they left India bleeding. Partition of the country had made millions of Indians either dead or impoverished and homeless.

British rulers noticed Brahmins preponderance everywhere including freedom movement. Preponderance of Brahmins at all levels of freedom movement alarmed the rulers.Sir William Lee, an important official in the Government of Bombay and Government of India, noticed in 1900 that during 1869 to 1899, Brahmins had secured almost all the places in education and administration. In 1879, the Collector of Tanjore wrote to James Courd, a Member of the Famine Commission, “There was no class except Brahmins, which was so hostile to English.” In the words of an observer, “If any community could claim the British out of the country, it was the Brahmin community 70% of those, who were felled by British bullets, were Brahmins.”

Sir Richard Temple, the governor of Bombay said that ever since 1818, when British finally defeated the Peshwa in the third Anglo Maratha war, Brahmins were, “Inspired with a national sentiment and with an ambition bounded only with the Bonds of India itself.” Innumerable C.I.D. Reports of that period confirmed the active role played by Brahmins in National movement.

In 1879, the Collector of Tanjore wrote to James Courd, a Member of the Famine Commission, “There was no class except Brahmins, which was so hostile to English.” In the words of an observer, “If any community could claim the British out of the country, it was the Brahmin community 70% of those, who were felled by British bullets, were Brahmins.”

Rowlett Report (1880) also confirmed that the British regarded Brahmins as the main force behind all terrorist movements and agitation leading to violence in almost all the provinces. Overwhelming support of Brahmin lawyers to Congress Party and Mrs. Anne Besant’s Home Rule made the British to believe that Brahmin Community was a threat to imperial rule.

In Brahmin’s growing influence and their hold on the Hindu Community, the rulers saw a potential threat to their rule in India. They considered it necessary to counter the hold of Brahmins by raising a strong force against them.Muslims and non-Brahmin castes were already resisting vociferously the dominance of Brahmins in these areas. They very carefully and effectively sidetracked the socially transformative movements of great scope, initiated by the intelligentsia of Indian Society.  On one hand, the British slighted the role of Brahmins as Indian intelligentsia and reformers, and on the other, portrayed them as oppressors and tyrants.

The British encouraged the formation of many caste groups to resist vociferously the dominance of Brahmins in modern callings. In whom they saw a potential threat to their rule in India. They allowed non-Brahmin castes and other communities to form political groups on the basis of caste and community. The movement against Brahmins forged ahead with ferocity in the Southern and Western parts of India. It remained mild in North India, where communalism had already disrupted the peace of the land.

In order to restrict Brahmin’s entry in Government jobs and make it available to non-Brahmins communities, British rulers started practice of “Preferences”. In the name of equality before law, rulers gave certain sections of society on the basis of caste and community financial assistance and preferences in education and Government employment at local and provincial level.They made provision for giving financial help to the non-brahmins, Muslims and Anglo-Indians and fixed up a quota for them in government services. Thus they opened up the doors of new opportunities of advancement to other castes and communities. It served double purpose – one, for them, getting credit for amelioration and protection of downtrodden and two, keeping natives busy in their in-fights.

During 1850s, Mohammedan Anglo Oriental College was established at Aligarh. English Principals like Archibold, Theodore Beck or Morrison of this institution played an important role in keeping Muslims away from mainstream and inculcating in them a feeling of separation.The seeds of communalism were sown during Lord Lytton’s Vice-royalty (1876-80). A deputation of Muslims led by His Highness Sir Agha Khan demanded on Oct. 1, 1896 separate electorate. . On Dec. 30, 1906 a separate party – Muslim League – was launched to pursue and safeguard Muslim interests.

Their demands of communal representation in the Imperial Legislative Council and District Boards, adequate share in the public service and local bodies, adequate safeguards for the protection and promotion of Muslim culture and weight to the Muslims to protect their legitimate interests were accepted through Minto-Morley Reforms known as Government of India Act of 1909. This Act devised a novel method to distribute and balance the power. It came as the first effective dose of communalization of Indian politics.

After gaining the loyalty of Muslims, during the second half of the nineteenth century, the British turned their attention to uplift non-Brahmin castes and to secure their confidence. On September 2, 1897, George Francis Hamilton, the then Secretary of State for India, wrote to Viceroy Curzon, “I think the real danger to our rule in India, not now but say 50 years hence, is the gradual adoption and extension of Western ideas of agitation and organization. If we could break the educated Hindu into two sections, holding widely different views, we should by such division, strengthen our position against the subtle and continuous attack, which the spread of education must make upon our system of Government.” The rulers succeeded in dividing educated Hindus of these two sections –Brahmins and Non Brahmins, holding widely different views. Such a division had strengthened immensely the position of rulers.

Even educated Hindus amongst non-Brahmins castes found it difficult to compete with Brahmins on equal footings. Rulers encouraged Non -Brahmins leaders to form their political pressure groups on the basis of castes and raise their voice against Brahmins.

In 1885 itself, Eutice J Kitts, a British ambassador in Azamgarh listed, for the first time, backward castes and tribes, from 1881 Census. The objective was to give them financial assistance and preferences in education and Government employment at local and provincial level. For the first, the government officially recognized caste as a base for the purposes of governance.

Initially special schools were opened for them. Special scholarship, loan, hostel facilities and concessions in school fees were provided to non Brahmins castes along with Muslims. In 1885, the education department proposed to reserve 50% of free scholarships for backwards and Muslims, as scholarships purely on merit grounds would perpetuate Brahmin’s monopoly. From this base, Reservation entered into education field, so that more non-Brahmins could qualify for the jobs.

Morley Minto Reform of 1909 gave the non-Brahmins a boost. They demanded with assertiveness Reservations for themselves in education and Government employment. In 1919, the British Government transferred to provincial Governments power over subjects like education, agriculture, veterinary service, roads and, buildings, social welfare etc. With all these powers, the British Government also passed on to the provinces, the responsibility to satisfy the conflicting claims for the Government jobs and other interests of major pressure groups, which had emerged in the Indian political scene.

The process of creating split started with the introduction of modern education system. Initially the British rulers excluded Indians from every honor, dignity or office, which lowest of Englishman could be given. But gradually it became difficult for the rulers to import enough Englishmen to man large and increasing number of subordinate or lower posts in administration. It compelled them to introduce modern education in India. However, they used even the education system shrewdly to meet their objectives effectively. It paved a way for imperial designs.

The intention of introducing modern education was, as Lord Macaulay said, “To form a class, who may be interpreters between us and millions of whom, we govern, a class of persons, Indian in blood and color, but English in taste, in opinion, in morals and in intellect”. It was mainly to get Indians, “Anglicized in terms of both cultural and intellectual attainment”.

Brahmins long tradition and undisputed role in the field of knowledge and learning, their intelligence, sincerity and hard work helped them not only to occupy almost all the lower levels posts in administration available to Indians, as desired by the rulers.

In 1835 introduction of modern education and in 1844, announcement of making knowledge of English as compulsory for government employment paved way for imperial designs and created rift in the Indian society.In the near absence of industrial, commercial or social service activity, the educated Indians depended entirely on Government jobs. This led to a keen competition between different sections of Indian society. British rulers took advantage of the diversities that already existed in India for centuries. The national leaders and intellectuals welcomed the introduction of modern education. They thought that understanding of Western literature and liberal, scientific, democratic and humanitarian thoughts of modern Western World would help to remedy many social, political and economic evils prevalent in the nation at that point of time. It would give some insight to the fragmented, poverty stricken, superstitious, weak, indifferent, backward and inward looking society of India. They took upon themselves the responsibility to build a modern, open, plural, culturally rich, prosperous and powerful India.

In 1918, Mysore Government appointed Miller Committee to look into the question.ⁱ On its recommendation “All communities, other than Brahmins, who were not adequately represented in the public Service” were declared backwards. In 1921 preferential recruitment for backward communities was instituted formally for the first time in its colleges and state services.

In 1925, Government of Bombay provided Reservations to backward communities in its services. It included all except Brahmins, Marwaris, Prabhus, Banias and Christians.ⁱⁱ Madras started quota based communal representation in its Government services and educational institution in 1921.The United Province had a practice of reserving, out of every four seats, 1 to Brahmin, 1 to Kayastha, 1 to Muslim and the last one to any section other than these three sections.

The concessions bestowed on the backward communities made them loyal to British rule. An excerpt from the Times Archives (Aug 1925) shows the upsurge of Non-Brahmins in Madras. Presiding over the fifth non-Brahmin Conference in Tanjore, Rao Bahadur O Thanikachalam Chetty of Madras, “Warned the non-Brahmin public of the dangers ahead” and how in the name of Swaraj, deception was being practiced, lies were decimated with a view to creating prejudice against the Justice party-men and to secure transfer of power to Brahmins under the guise of supporting the Swarajis.

The speaker emphasized the need to counter-act Swarajis’ activity in view of the coming elections to Legislative Council. He said that their province had, hitherto, successfully resisted the seditious blandishments of the Swarajis and had earned the good name of having successfully worked for the transitional Constitution vouched safe to them by the “Government of India Act.”

Census operation, introduction of electoral politics and suggestion of the Census Commission for 1911 Census, to exclude untouchables, (comprising about 24% of Hindu population and 16% of the total population in 1908) from Hinduism, had made position of untouchables prominent in Indian political scene.

Around 1909, the lower strata of Hindu community were conceptualized under the name of “untouchables”. So far,v untouchables had clubbed their political activities with backward classes led by the Justice Party and South Indian Liberation Federation, which were already agitating against Brahmin’s dominance in modern callings. The emergence of Dr. Ambedkar on the political scene provided with the required leadership and needed stimulus to untouchable movement during late twenties and early thirties. There is a section of people, which considers that Ambedkar was planted into Indian politics purposely by British rulers only. Dr. Ambedkar, while representing untouchables in Simon Commission proceedings, demanded separate electorate, reserved seats for untouchables in legislative bodies, special educational concessions, and recruitment to Government posts on preferential basis, laws against discrimination and a special department to look after the welfare of untouchables. These demands were readily accepted through Communal Award of 1932.

Gandhiji along with other National leaders regarded it as the “Unkindest cut of all, which would create a permanent split in Hindu Society, perpetuate casteism and make impossible the assimilation of untouchables in mainstream. Dr. Rajendra Prasad said, “The principle of dividing population into communal groups, which had been adopted in the Minto Morely Reforms, had been considerably extended, even beyond what had been done by Montagu Chelmsford Reforms….” “The electorate in 1919 was broken up into ten parts, now it is fragmented into seventeen unequal bits… Giving separate representations to Schedule Castes further weakened Hindu community. Division on the basis of religion, occupation and service were made. The British introduced every possible cross-division”.ⁱⁱⁱ Lal Bahadur Shastri denounced the whole happenings “As a shameless episode of the National History of the Country.”

The Constitution of India, through Articles 14, 15 and 16, guaranteed equality of opportunity to all citizens relating to advancement and employment or appointment to any office under the State. However it also allowed the Government to make special provisions in favour of any backward class of citizens.

The present day politicians have followed their steps and created such an atmosphere that seeds sown by British may blossom in full. The Indian politicians have inherited from British rulers three powerful democratic weapons i.e. Electoral policy, Census operations, and Reservation Policy. Earlier British rulers used them for economic exploitation and perpetuation of their rule as long as possible. Now Indian politicians are using it in similar way for their own advantage. Present trend of giving continued importance to diversities especially of caste, community, region, language by most of the political parties and shrewd politicians for electoral purposes is at its peak. Instead of the feeling of fraternity amongst Indians, “feeling of ‘others” or “we” and “them” has become more prominent than.

The public mandate got fractured on caste and communal lines. At present, it has become almost impossible to ensure a stable Government. Political insecurity has engulfed the whole nation into caste politics. It has given birth to worst form of caste and communal divide. Caste frenzy overtook country’s two most populous provinces of UP and Bihar.

The result is hung parliaments, insecure politicians, scant respect for democratic norms and conduct. Unholy pre or post poll alliances are made. There are manipulations to get hold on power. All political parties try to extract political mileage out of Paternalistic policies.

Politicians are adopting gimmicks of secularism, socialism, equity and social justice. They evade real issues and shirk responsibility. Political party in power finds itself handicapped and lack courage to take hard decisions.

Along with caste politics prospered criminalization of politics and corruption ridden leadership scenario in the country with large number of scams and scandals. Power-centric politicians do not care for any principle or ideology; neither do they care for honesty or welfare of people. For power, they do not even mind using foul means or hesitate in taking help of criminals. Many history-sheetors are, at present, in politics.

There is a blatant use of money and muscle power in elections. Politicians try various permutations and combinations to increase their vote Banks. Poor public is a silent spectator, while political atmosphere is surcharged with manipulation, casteism, nepotism and criminalisation.

The situation is leading to fundamentalist and separatist attitudes, conflict, instability, in-decisiveness, and rigid and irrational attitude.For political advantages, different caste, sub-castes and sub-sub-castes have come together, bearing the same caste tag. But they do not forget their separate identities. The political tags/identities as caste Hindus, backwards, SCs, STs and minorities for Reservations and other preferential measures has increased the in-fights between these categories and created social disorder, making the task of governance difficult.

While laying down the foundation of some democratic institutions and policies, the Imperial rulers set the example of how policies of great scope can be used for serving the vested interests of persons in power. The Indian politicians have inherited from British rulers three powerful democratic weapons i.e. Electoral policy, Census operations, and Reservation Policy.

Mr Hiro, born in Sindh before partition, has written a highly readable account of a complicated history. It first considers how partition came about, mostly through the personalities of Jinnah and Gandhi. He holds Gandhi, whose faith was  “orthodox Hinduism”, and India’s Congress party more responsible than Muslim leaders for India’s split. But he is also damning of Jinnah, whom Gandhi called an “evil genius” and “a Hitler” for unleashing religious violence for political gain. The book goes on to explore the fates of both countries through their acquisition of nuclear weapons, border clashes and Bollywood. Others may delve deeper into who bears most blame for three-quarters of a century of strife. But Mr Hiro’s book has other virtues. A dispassionate chronological narrative, it is an excellent introduction to a bitterly contested topic.

The idea that the British Raj pursued a policy of ‘Divide and Rule’ is probably the single most prevalent historiography. It was an idea whose time came, and never passed. It was a ‘catch-all’ and ‘explain-all’ idea that neatly accounted for the success of British policy in a way that left Indians with some dignity. Hence its adoption by everyone, from Arya Samajists like H. B. Sarda, to Congress theoreticians like Gandhi and Nehru.

The idea that ‘Divide and Rule’ actively, logically led on to Partition is a contrived and untenable idea. The words themselves are so seductive and easy to manipulate that they can capture receptive minds all too readily. But neat words do not necessarily reflect historical truth. So, although we can turn ‘Divide and Rule’ deftly into ‘Divide and Quit’, or a number of other damning formulations, this does not justify seeing these transformations as having any real correspondence to British policy. This needs some critical attention before we can pass on.

Jinnah had been an unlikely figure to bring Pakistan into existence. A wealthy, anglophile lawyer with a Parsi wife, he had long resisted fervently mixing religion and politics, even as his more successful rival, Mohandas Gandhi, was happy to marry them together. Jinnah’s political triumph came only when he changed methods, stoking Muslim fears of a “Hindu Raj” in India. On August 11th 1947 he told an assembly crafting a new constitution that Pakistan was being born of necessity, as Muslims had “no other solution”.

In Dilip Hiro’s brisk and clear history of partition and its effects, “The Longest August”, evidence piles up of the great, long-lived cost of all this. He says that the “communal holocaust” resulted in the massacre of over half a million people, Hindus and Muslims in roughly equal number. Killings began apparently spontaneously, as members of rival religious groups settled old scores, and then escalated in a cycle of vengeance. Millions more were displaced; trudging refugees formed caravans that were more than 50 miles long. Relations between India and Pakistan were probably destined to be awful, but Pakistan made sure of it by starting an ill-judged war (the first of several), sending Pushtun fighters to invade Muslim-majority Kashmir. They botched the job, ensuring Kashmir’s accession to India. India’s repressive rule there has ensured that the dispute remains unresolved.

Neither country’s fate has been ideal, but India is easily more democratic, stable and better off. Mr Hiro’s focus is not on the larger country—a shame, because he might have emphasised how Muslims who stayed behind, and their descendants, face a brighter future than Pakistanis whose society is more intolerant and more violent. Instead his interest is in telling the successive missteps of Pakistan and its relations with its larger twin.

India under Jawaharlal Nehru enshrined constitutional rule. In Pakistan Jinnah’s early death, just 13 months after partition, left uncertainty. The army soon grabbed ever more power and public resources, justifying itself by talking up threats from India. Successive leaders, both civilian and military, used and encouraged Islamist extremists. Repression and further slaughter in East Pakistan led to the secession of that half of the country, with military help from India, in 1971.

Other wars, such as Pakistan’s reckless effort in 1999 to grab Kargil, a sliver of Indian Kashmir, have further poisoned cross-border relations. Islamist militants and terrorists in Pakistan, some backed by parts of the army, regularly attack Kashmir, other parts of India and Indian targets in Afghanistan. India, often clumsy and arrogant, has also been at fault, building alliances in Afghanistan that worry Pakistan, and allegedly helping separatists in Pakistan’s Balochistan province or talking of plans for invasion. The bitterness is not diminishing: Narendra Modi, the first Indian prime minister to be born after partition, appears more confrontational than his predecessors despite a friendly start last May, when Nawaz Sharif, Pakistan’s civilian leader, was invited to his inauguration.

Mr Hiro, born in Sindh before partition, has written a highly readable account of a complicated history. It first considers how partition came about, mostly through the personalities of Jinnah and Gandhi. He holds Gandhi, whose faith was  “orthodox Hinduism”, and India’s Congress party more responsible than Muslim leaders for India’s split. But he is also damning of Jinnah, whom Gandhi called an “evil genius” and “a Hitler” for unleashing religious violence for political gain. The book goes on to explore the fates of both countries through their acquisition of nuclear weapons, border clashes and Bollywood. Others may delve deeper into who bears most blame for three-quarters of a century of strife. But Mr Hiro’s book has other virtues. A dispassionate chronological narrative, it is an excellent introduction to a bitterly contested topic.

The idea that the British Raj pursued a policy of ‘Divide and Rule’ is probably the single most prevalent historiography. It was an idea whose time came, and never passed. It was a ‘catch-all’ and ‘explain-all’ idea that neatly accounted for the success of British policy in a way that left Indians with some dignity. Hence its adoption by everyone, from Arya Samajists like H. B. Sarda, to Congress theoreticians like Gandhi and Nehru.

The idea that ‘Divide and Rule’ actively, logically led on to Partition is a contrived and untenable idea. The words themselves are so seductive and easy to manipulate that they can capture receptive minds all too readily. But neat words do not necessarily reflect historical truth. So, although we can turn ‘Divide and Rule’ deftly into ‘Divide and Quit’, or a number of other damning formulations, this does not justify seeing these transformations as having any real correspondence to British policy. This needs some critical attention before we can pass on.