Who Supported British Rule in India?

 

Who Supported British Rule in India?

When we discuss India’s struggle for independence, we often picture a united front resisting British rule. But the reality was far more nuanced. Many communities, castes, and classes found reasons to support — or at least cooperate with — the British Raj. This article explores who supported colonial rule in India, why they did so, and whether they altered their narratives after 1947.

Religious Communities and British Rule

Muslim Elites: Following the decline of the Mughal Empire, many Muslim aristocrats, especially in regions like Punjab and the United Provinces, sought to maintain their influence by aligning with the British. The colonial state often reciprocated this loyalty with administrative posts and land privileges.

Source: Hardy, Peter. “The Muslims of British India.” Cambridge University Press, 1972.

Sikhs: After the fall of the Sikh Empire, many Sikhs, particularly from the Jat caste, were recruited into the British Indian Army. The British categorized them under the “martial races” theory, rewarding their loyalty with military ranks, land grants, and pensions.

Source: Streets, Heather. “Martial Races: The Military, Race and Masculinity in British Imperial Culture, 1857–1914.” Manchester University Press, 2004.

Indian Christians: Christian converts, especially in South India, benefited from missionary-led education and often found employment in the British bureaucracy. Their support stemmed largely from access to upward mobility and education.

Source: Oddie, Geoffrey A. “Social Protest in India: British Protestant Missionaries and Social Reforms 1850–1900.” Manohar, 1979.

Caste and Class Dynamics

Brahmins: Brahmins were early beneficiaries of Western education and dominated the ranks of clerks, lawyers, and teachers. In provinces like Madras and Bombay, Brahmins occupied a disproportionate share of administrative positions.

Source: Rao, M.S.A. “Social Movements in India.” Vol. 1, Manohar, 1978.

Kayasthas: The Kayastha caste, known for their clerical and administrative skills, thrived under the British, especially in Bengal and Uttar Pradesh. They filled key roles in the bureaucracy and judiciary.

Source: Sarkar, Sumit. “Modern India 1885–1947.” Macmillan, 1983.

Other Upper Castes: Chitpavan Brahmins in Maharashtra and Bhadralok in Bengal used their education and adaptability to gain British favor. These groups often became intermediaries between the British and Indian society.

Source: Deshpande, Satish. “Contemporary India: A Sociological View.” Penguin Books, 2003.

Dalits and Lower Castes: Some Dalit leaders like Dr. B.R. Ambedkar saw British reforms — like the outlawing of untouchability and the promotion of education — as opportunities for liberation from caste oppression. British support for separate electorates for Dalits was also seen as a step towards political representation.

Source: Zelliot, Eleanor. “From Untouchable to Dalit: Essays on the Ambedkar Movement.” Manohar, 1992.

Why Did These Groups Support the British?

• Economic Incentives: Jobs in the army, railways, and civil services.
• Social Mobility: Education and legal reforms provided a ladder for upward mobility.
• Political Stability: British rule often brought more predictability than the feudal or princely alternatives.

Post-Independence Narrative Shifts

After 1947, many groups who had previously collaborated with the British rebranded themselves as nationalists.

• The Indian National Congress, which began as a loyalist body of English-educated elites, evolved into the principal force behind independence.
• Former collaborators highlighted their later participation in nationalist movements, often downplaying earlier affiliations.

Source: Chandra, Bipan. “India’s Struggle for Independence.” Penguin, 1989.

Some caste groups also strategically shifted their narratives. For example:

• Upper castes emphasized their sacrifices and leadership in the freedom movement.
• Dalit groups, under Ambedkar’s influence, focused on how British rule exposed and challenged caste hierarchies.

Conclusion

Support for British rule in India was never homogenous. Religious, caste, and class interests played critical roles in shaping alignments. Understanding who supported the British — and why — complicates our picture of the freedom struggle. It also sheds light on how historical narratives have been reshaped in post-colonial India for political legitimacy.

The echoes of these alignments and rebrandings still reverberate in India’s contemporary politics, caste dynamics, and historical memory.

The Flames of Reform: A Journey Through India’s Caste Movements

 India’s history is a tapestry woven with threads of resilience, rebellion, and reform. Among its most powerful undercurrents are the caste movements—grassroots struggles that challenged the rigid hierarchies of the varna and jati systems. Spanning the late 19th and early 20th centuries, these movements were not just protests against oppression but bold assertions of dignity, identity, and equality. From Jyotiba Phule’s Satyashodhak Movement in 1873 to the Congress Harijan Movement of 1917 and beyond, each effort lit a spark that illuminated the path toward social justice. Let’s explore these transformative chapters in India’s past.

Satyashodhak Movement (1873): The Truth-Seekers’ Revolution

In the bustling intellectual landscape of 19th-century Maharashtra, Jyotiba Phule emerged as a radical visionary. A man of humble origins, Phule founded the Satyashodhak Samaj (Society of Truth-Seekers) in 1873 to dismantle the Brahmanical monopoly over knowledge and religion. He saw caste as a tool of exploitation, propped up by superstition and priestly authority. Through education, Phule empowered the Shudras and Ati-Shudras—peasants, laborers, and the so-called "untouchables"—to question their subjugation. His writings, like Gulamgiri (Slavery), drew parallels between caste oppression and global struggles against slavery, making his movement a clarion call for universal equality. The Satyashodhak legacy lived on, inspiring generations to seek truth over tradition.

Aravippuram Movement (1889): A Temple for Humanity

Far south in Kerala, another quiet revolution unfolded. In 1889, Sree Narayana Guru, a spiritual leader from the Ezhava community, consecrated a temple at Aravippuram—an act forbidden to "lower" castes by orthodox norms. With a simple stone inscribed, “This is a place where men are not distinguished by caste but by their deeds,” Guru redefined sanctity. The Aravippuram Movement wasn’t just about temple entry; it was a philosophical upheaval, urging self-respect and unity among marginalized communities. Guru’s mantra—“One Caste, One Religion, One God for Man”—echoed beyond Kerala, planting seeds of social harmony in a divided society.

Nair Movement (1891): Awakening an Elite

In Kerala’s complex caste mosaic, the Nair community—though relatively privileged—faced internal hierarchies and economic stagnation. The Nair Movement, catalyzed in 1891 with the formation of the Nair Service Society (NSS) later in 1914, sought modernization and self-assertion. Leaders like Mannathu Padmanabhan pushed for education, land reforms, and the abolition of outdated customs like matrilineal inheritance disputes. While not as radical as other movements, it reflected a growing awareness among intermediate castes to adapt and thrive in a changing world.

Kaivartas Movement (1897): The Fishermen’s Fight

In Bengal, the Kaivartas—traditional fishermen and peasants—launched a lesser-known but significant struggle in 1897. Facing economic exploitation and social disdain, they demanded recognition and rights through collective action. This movement, though localized, highlighted how caste intersected with class, as marginalized groups sought to break free from both feudal landlords and societal stigma. The Kaivartas’ resistance foreshadowed broader Dalit and peasant uprisings in the 20th century.

Nadar Movement (1910): From Stigma to Strength

The Nadars of Tamil Nadu, once derided as “toddy tappers,” transformed their narrative through sheer determination. Around 1910, their movement gained momentum, driven by economic progress and a quest for social dignity. Nadar leaders organized associations, built schools, and challenged restrictions on temple entry and attire. Their ascent—culminating in political influence and community pride—showed how collective action could rewrite a caste’s destiny, turning scorn into respect.

Justice Party Movement (1916): Politics of Equity

In the Madras Presidency, the Justice Party emerged in 1916 as a voice for non-Brahmin elites—Vellalas, Chettiars, and others—who felt sidelined by Brahman dominance in education and administration. Founded by T.M. Nair and P. Theagaraya Chetty, the party advocated reservations and secular governance, winning power in 1920. Though criticized for favoring privileged non-Brahmins over the most oppressed, the Justice Party laid the groundwork for Dravidian politics, amplifying the demand for a caste-free public sphere.

Congress Harijan Movement (1917): Gandhi’s Ambivalent Reform

When Mahatma Gandhi returned to India in 1915, he brought a moral lens to the caste question. In 1917, the Congress, under his influence, launched the Harijan Movement to uplift “untouchables”—a term Gandhi coined to replace derogatory labels. Through campaigns for temple entry and sanitation work, he sought to integrate Dalits into Hindu society. Yet, his approach, rooted in paternalism rather than radical equality, drew ire from leaders like B.R. Ambedkar, who saw it as preserving caste rather than abolishing it. The movement stirred debate, exposing the tension between reform and revolution.

Mahar Movement (1924): The Dawn of Dalit Assertion

In Maharashtra, the Mahars—classified as “untouchables”—found a champion in B.R. Ambedkar. By 1924, their movement crystallized around demands for education, employment, and temple entry, notably at the Mahad Satyagraha in 1927. Ambedkar’s leadership transformed the Mahar struggle into a broader Dalit awakening, rejecting assimilation for self-reliance. His burning of the Manusmriti in 1927 symbolized a break from oppressive traditions, setting the stage for constitutional battles ahead.

Self-Respect Movement (1925): Dignity Over Divinity

E.V. Ramasamy, fondly called Periyar, launched the Self-Respect Movement in Tamil Nadu in 1925, rejecting caste, religion, and patriarchy outright. Unlike reformist efforts, Periyar’s crusade was unapologetically radical—promoting rationalism, women’s rights, and inter-caste marriages. His newspaper Kudi Arasu spread the message: dignity wasn’t a gift from gods or elites but a right to be claimed. The movement’s anti-Brahmanical stance fueled the Dravidian identity, leaving an indelible mark on South India’s social fabric.

Reflections: A Legacy Unfinished

These caste movements, though diverse in scope and ideology, shared a common thread: the refusal to accept subjugation as fate. From Phule’s truth-seekers to Periyar’s rationalists, they challenged a system that had endured for millennia. Yet, their victories were partial. Caste persists in modern India—subtler, perhaps, but stubborn. These pioneers remind us that social change is a marathon, not a sprint, and their flames still flicker in today’s struggles for justice.

What can we learn from them? That courage begins with questioning, and equality is built, not bestowed. As India marches into the future, these movements whisper a timeless truth: the fight for dignity is never truly over.

Communal Clashes in British India: A Pre-20th Century Tale of Tension and Turmoil

 

Communal Clashes in British India: A Pre-20th Century Tale of Tension and Turmoil

Before the 20th century’s infamous riots — like the Partition violence of 1947 — British India was no stranger to communal strife between Hindus and Muslims. From the bustling streets of Bombay to the rural fields of Malabar, the 19th century saw sporadic but significant clashes that foreshadowed the larger conflicts to come. These riots, often sparked by religious processions, sacred spaces, or economic grievances, reveal a complex interplay of faith, identity, and colonial rule. Here, we dive into key instances before 1900, exploring their causes, casualties, and the British response — or lack thereof — wherever the historical record permits.

Bombay Riot, 1809: A Land Dispute Turns Deadly

Cause: In 1809, Bombay witnessed one of the earliest recorded communal riots under British rule, triggered by a dispute over land claimed by both a Hindu temple and a Muslim mosque. This clash of sacred spaces ignited tensions in a city already buzzing with diverse communities under East India Company control.
Casualties: Exact numbers are elusive — early 19th-century records are patchy — but historical accounts suggest several deaths and injuries as mobs clashed.
British Response: The East India Company, more focused on trade than governance, likely intervened minimally, relying on local leaders to restore order. The lack of detailed documentation hints at a hands-off approach, typical of the Company’s early rule.

Moplah Rebellion, 1836–1854: Peasant Fury Meets Religious Divide

Cause: In Malabar, a series of uprisings by Moplah Muslims against Hindu landlords and British authorities erupted between 1836 and 1854. Rooted in oppressive land tenure systems, these rebellions took on a communal hue as Muslim peasants targeted Hindu zamindars, blending economic despair with religious identity.
Casualties: The violence was brutal — dozens of landlords and their families were killed across multiple outbreaks, with British records noting at least 22 significant incidents by 1854. Moplah casualties, including those executed or killed in clashes, likely numbered in the hundreds.
British Response: The British cracked down hard, deploying troops to suppress the rebellions. Courts sentenced leaders to death or exile, and by 1854, the region was under tighter control, though underlying tensions simmered. This heavy-handed response reflected their priority: protecting revenue and order over addressing root causes.

Farazi Movement Conflicts, 1838–1847: Bengal’s Peasant Revolt

Cause: In Bengal, the Farazi movement, an Islamic reform group, rallied Muslim peasants against Hindu landlords and British taxation. Clashes in the 1840s, especially around 1842, saw violence over land and economic exploitation, with religion amplifying the divide.
Casualties: Specific casualty figures are scarce, but reports suggest dozens died in skirmishes, with both Muslim peasants and Hindu zamindars suffering losses.
British Response: The British, wary of unrest, arrested Farazi leaders like Dudu Miyan and imposed stricter land controls. Their response leaned toward containment rather than reconciliation, reinforcing divisions to maintain power.

Delhi Riot, 1853: Music and Mosques Collide

Cause: In 1853, Delhi flared up when music from a Hindu procession near a mosque during Ramzan sparked outrage. This clash of religious practices turned violent in a city still reeling from Mughal decline.
Casualties: Details are thin, but contemporary accounts suggest several deaths and widespread injuries as mobs took to the streets.
British Response: Under Company rule, the British likely used local police to quell the riot, though no major policy shift is recorded. Their focus remained on stability, not communal harmony.

Patna Riot, 1869: Festival Noise Fuels Fury

Cause: In Patna, a Hindu festival’s music near a mosque in 1869 ignited a riot, echoing earlier procession disputes. Urban crowding and religious sensitivities made such triggers common.
Casualties: Casualty figures are unclear — perhaps a dozen or more died — but the violence disrupted the city significantly.
British Response: By now under Crown rule (post-1858), the British deployed police and possibly troops to restore order. Records are sparse, but their response likely prioritized quick suppression over addressing underlying tensions.

Lahore Riot, 1871: Another Procession Sparks Violence

Cause: Lahore saw violence in 1871 when a Hindu procession’s music near a mosque provoked a Muslim backlash, a recurring flashpoint in British India’s cities.
Casualties: Exact numbers are lost to time, but injuries and a handful of deaths are probable based on similar riots.
British Response: The British, now more entrenched, likely used local forces to break up the riot. Their “divide and rule” strategy was subtly at play, as they avoided deep intervention that might unite communities against them.

Meerut Riot, 1887: Tensions Boil Over

Cause: In 1887, Meerut erupted over music during a Hindu procession near a mosque, a familiar trigger by the late 19th century as communal identities hardened.
Casualties: Historical accounts suggest dozens were injured, with several deaths — precise numbers remain unconfirmed.
British Response: The colonial administration deployed police and possibly military units, reflecting a more systematic approach to urban unrest. Fines or arrests may have followed, though details are limited.

Bombay Riot, 1893: A Procession’s Path to Chaos

Cause: The 1893 Bombay riot was sparked by a dispute over a Hindu procession’s route near Muslim areas, escalating into one of the deadliest pre-1900 clashes. Economic competition and urban density fueled the fire.
Casualties: Reports estimate 80–100 deaths and hundreds injured, making it a stark outlier in scale and impact.
British Response: The British responded decisively, deploying police and troops to quell the violence over several days. Arrests followed, and officials tightened regulations on processions, though this did little to heal the growing rift.

What Drove These Riots?

These clashes weren’t just about religion — though faith was the spark, deeper currents ran beneath. Processions and music near sacred spaces were flashpoints, as seen in Delhi, Patna, Lahore, and Meerut, reflecting a struggle for public space in crowded cities. Land disputes, like in Bombay (1809) and Malabar, tied economic power to religious identity. The Moplah and Farazi conflicts reveal class warfare dressed in communal garb, with peasants challenging elites across religious lines. British policies, especially post-1857, sharpened these divides, encouraging separate identities to weaken unified resistance — a tactic that paid dividends for colonial control but sowed seeds of discord.

The Human Cost

Casualties varied widely. Smaller riots like Delhi (1853) or Lahore (1871) might have claimed a handful of lives, while Bombay (1893) saw a death toll nearing 100. The Moplah Rebellion’s scattered violence likely killed hundreds over decades. Injuries, property damage, and disrupted lives added to the toll, though exact figures are often lost to history’s fog — early records prioritized order over empathy.

The British Hand: Response and Responsibility

The British response evolved over time. In 1809, the East India Company barely stirred, leaving local solutions to prevail. By the Moplah Rebellion, they wielded military might, executing leaders to crush dissent. Post-1858 Crown rule brought police and troops to urban riots, as in Bombay (1893), but their focus was containment, not resolution. Historians argue their “divide and rule” strategy — formalized later with separate electorates — began informally here, as they avoided mediating communal harmony in favor of maintaining power. Yet, they weren’t mere bystanders; their land policies and neglect of social tensions often lit the fuse.

Echoes of the Past

These pre-20th century riots were harbingers of worse to come, from the Calcutta riots of 1926 to Partition’s horrors. They reveal a society fracturing under colonial strain, where faith, economics, and governance collided. Today, they remind us that history’s lessons — about division, neglect, and the cost of silence — are as urgent as ever.

For deeper dives, explore the British Library’s India Office Records or classics like “The Cambridge History of India.” The past still speaks — if we listen.