Introduction to Imperialism
I. Phases of Imperialism
II. Motives for High Imperialism
A. Economic
B. Strategic
C. Social Darwinism
D. White Man’s Takeover
III. Scramble for Africa
IV. Patterns of Takeover
High Imperialism
Industrial Revolution
Vladimir I. Lenin
Social Darwinism
Herbert Spencer
“civilizing mission”
White Man’s Burden
Rudyard Kipling
Scramble for Africa
King Leopold II
Berlin Conference (1884)
Henry Stanley
· Up to this point, we have discussed a variety of interactions between Europe and the non-Western world.
· For example, we saw how the Portuguese had make contacts with Africans for the sake of trade –
· And how the British and other Western powers forced China to open up for the same purpose.
· Today. we’ll explore the theme of “imperialism.”
· What IS “imperialism?”
·
Generally speaking, it is the extension of one country’s -- usually a “developed” one –control or
influence over other territories or peoples, usually “underdeveloped”
ones.
· This process usually involves
· superior military strength
· and more advanced technology.
· We should distinguish between two kinds of Western imperialism.
· Or perhaps it is more useful to think of it in phases.
1. The first predates the Industrial Revolution, from the 16th century through the first half of the 19th -- we usually call this colonialism.
· For example, the Spanish, Portuguese, French, and the English all had colonies in the Americas in which they settled large numbers of their own people.
· However, by the mid 19th century only Britain still had a large empire –
· many of the original Spanish and Portuguese colonies had gained their independence.
2. The second phase develops with the Industrial Revolution -- starting around the 1850s and peaking from the 1880s to 1914.
· We call this the age of “High Imperialism” or the “new imperialism”
· This is when the Europeans nations set up formal control over the nations of Africa and Asia.
· During this second period, there was much less focus on settlement than on economic exploitation.
· High imperialism was also driven by European rivalry.
· The term imperialism has many meanings – but in the 19th century what we are looking at is the efforts of Europe countries (particularly capitalist, Western European countries) to seize new markets and to find cheap sources of raw materials.
§ The primary impetus behind this imperialist drive was economic –
§ But it was also mixed in with other motives – moral, political and strategic – which we’ll discuss later.
· All of Europe’s great powers participated in this second phase of expansion –
· including Britain, France, Russia, Italy, Germany, and even Belgium -- a not-so-great power.
· Even non-European powers, such as the US and Japan, became “imperialists” during the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
· So why did High Imperialism emerge when it did?
§ First of all, it was a function of the economic requirements of the time:
§ At the root of this was the Industrial Revolution, which took off in Western Europe during the middle of the 19th century (and a bit earlier in Britain)
· The Industrial Revolution was not a sudden event –
· but a process that took place over a period of time --
· first in England -- and then it spread throughout Western Europe in the second and third quarter of the nineteenth century.
· It involved a major shift from traditional, labor-intensive work based on agriculture and handicrafts—
· To a more capital-intensive economy based on machines, specialized labor, and large industrial factories.
· The Industrial Revolution ushered in a tectonic change in Europe –
· It meant the needs of European countries were different than before.
· As the basis of the economy shifted from agriculture to industry, Europe needed raw materials.
· This changed the type of products that Western countries wanted to obtain from the non-Western world.
· In earlier times, Europeans were primarily interested in products like spices, silk, porcelain – as we saw in the case of China.
· But by the mid- to late-19th century, European industry requires things like oil, tin, rubber and other resources not easily found inside Europe.
· The problem was that it was hard to extract these products –
· and there was also a great competition for them.
· So in order to be sure that they had access to such materials, European countries needed to exert more direct control over the areas that produced these important materials.
· They had to be able to control the flow of oil, rubber, and so forth –
· They needed copper, iron ore – as well as gold and diamonds (luxury goods sold for capital)
· and make sure that these materials don’t fall into the hands of their competitors.
· The result was that European countries built new enterprises in far-away lands – mines, plantations, docks, warehouses, factories, railroads, steamships –
· And then they had to be able to protect their investments à
· Which led to exerting a more direct control over these non-Western regions.
· In fact, not only did the Industrial Revolution result in the need for European countries to control these non-Western regions –
· The Indust Revolution also made this type of control POSSIBLE.
· Industrialization meant technological advances and producing goods in large quantities.
· European countries were mass producing guns and weapons –
· as well as cables for communications, steamships, and railroads –
· All of which helped to make European dominance more possible.
· A second economic need that the Europeans had was that of finding markets in which to sell the goods that they were producing.
· Factories in the West could produce more goods than consumers in those countries could possibly buy –
· So there was a need to find places to sell these excess goods.
· The Europeans saw overseas colonies as potentially good markets for their goods.
· If the Europeans could produce cheap clothing or other basic goods – then the people in the colonies might buy this stuff.
· It also made sense to try to sell such goods to these weaker countries because the more industrially advanced countries tended to protect their markets from competitors.
· With the advent of the Industrial Revolution there was a tremendous change in the relationships between the industrialized countries and the underdeveloped areas that they colonized.
· That is the industrialized countries asserted their dominance in a more direct way –
· they turned less- developed countries into dependent colonies.
· Even though the new imperialism involves all the European powers (plus the US and Japan), the leader in all this is Britain
· The result is that by 1900 ¼ of the earth’s population is under British rule
· 1/5 of the earth’s land surface is ruled by the British (including India)
· Lots of writers have tried to explain the economic roots of imperialism.
· One of the most important of these was John A. Hobson –
· An Englishman who was a strong critic of imperialism
· .In 1902 he wrote a book called Imperialism.
o Here he argued that the driving force behind imperialism was finance – the bankers
o Extra money needed to go someplace.
· He said that if workers were simply paid better – which would prevent so much money from going to wealthy stockholders – or if the rich were taxed more heavily (and the money was used for social programs), then there would be no need for imperialism.
o That is, Hobson said that if workers were given higher wages, then there would be no need to look abroad for markets.
o You would have a bigger market of well-paid workers at home to buy these goods.
· He argued that imperialism didn’t serve the national interest
o It only served particular interests – the bankers, financiers, industrialists.
· But he also said that there were other motives for imperialism besides pure economics –
o such as the “itch for glory and adventure”
· Another person who addressed these issues was Vladimir Lenin, the leader of the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia.
o Around WWI, he wrote that imperialism was “the highest form of capitalism”
o Which meant that the development of capitalism would inevitably lead to imperialist tendencies in capitalist countries.
· Lenin argues that economic competition under a capitalist system weeds out small companies – leaving fewer and fewer big firms.
o At some point, the larger companies that remain begin to form monopolistic cartels.
o Since these national monopolies competed with national monopolies in other countries – sooner or later they turned to their governments for protection.
o As a result, the competition between companies gets transferred from the economic to the political and military arena.
o And in the end, this rivalry between capitalist nations leads to war.
· Lenin believed that the outbreak of WWI vindicated these theories – since it was a war between the imperialist powers of Europe.
o He saw it as a war between different capitalist, imperialist countries fighting for markets and resources.
· Some would argue that the new imperialism was also the result of the Europeans’ search for security and power.
· For example, the establishment of a British protectorate in Afghanistan (use map) in 1880 is explained less by economic motives –
· than by a desire to place a buffer state between India and Russian colonies in the area.
· (The rivalry between Britain and Russia in Central Asia was called the “great game” -- we’ll talk more about that in a few days.)
· In fact, the British policy in this part of the world was basically a 19th century version of containment:
· Keep Russia from getting to open water
· Britain was the great naval power and didn’t wasn’t Russia to get too powerful
· So had to prop up buffer states around the Middle East
· India is important for this
· This was the policy of Lord Curzon, a prominent supporter of British imperialist policies,
· He put it this way: “Turkestan, Afghanistan, Transcapia, Persia . . . . To me, I confess, they are the pieces on a chessboard upon which is being played out a game for the domination of the world.”
· In a sense, Curzon was right.
· In 1500 the European powers controlled about 7% of the world’s land.
· By 1800 they controlled 35%, and in 1914, they controlled 84%.
· Competition for colonies also took on a sort of domino effect –
§ As the leaders of European countries believed that if THEY did not take over strategic areas, then somebody else would.
· An example of this would be Egypt – which occupied an important strategic position that linked the Mediterranean and Red Seas.
§ The Suez Canal was constructed by a French company in the 1860s.
§ But in the early 1880s, after a rebellion in Egypt, the British took it over—
§ Because they were afraid that the French might take it over first.
· Ideological factors also help to explain the age of High Imperialism in the late 19th century.
§ One of the most important intellectual currents of this period was Social Darwinism.
§ This was loosely based on the ideas of Charles Darwin – the biologist who had published a book called The Origin of Species in 1859.
· Darwin had come up with the idea of evolution –
§ that all plants and animals had evolved over a long period of time from earlier and simpler forms of life.
§ Because of this life becomes a constant struggle to survive –
§ The fittest species survive; the weak perish.
· Some intellectuals, later called Social Darwinists, took Darwin’s ideas and used them as a way of justifying European control over other nations.
§ One of the most famous of these was Herbert Spencer.
· Social Darwinism argued that Life is a struggle –
§ And that only the strongest and most fit societies will survive and thrive – an idea known as the “survival of the fittest”
§ Such people argue that the world is a competitive place – and only those societies which are equipped to adapt to the changing world will survive.
§ à The next step for them was to argue that since the European nations were the first to industrialize and modernize – meant that they were superior to other peoples.
· So in the 19th century, the assumption was that not only were Asian, African, and other colonized peoples different –
· but they were inferior as well. (religion, culture, customs)
· Social Darwinists of the 19th century didn’t believe that there was anything to be learned from non-Western peoples.
· Some used pseudo-scientific studies which supposedly proved the superiority of Western peoples –
· through, for example, measures of cranium size.
· So, as you can see, there is a racist component to all of this.
· In the 19th century white Europeans -- because of this process of European cultural and intellectual domination -- tended to see themselves as being more advanced than non-white non-Europeans.
· They looked upon the institutions and the behavior of the peoples they encountered and considered them to be inferior –
· while the behavior and the institutions of the Europeans were superior.
· Of course, it is worth emphasizing that Europeans didn’t always think like this.
· For example, in the 18th century, much of the French upper class was fascinated with all things Chinese.
· Voltaire wrote about how advanced the civilizations Asia and Africa were in some respects.
· In fact, he thought that China should send Confucian advisors to Europe to civilize the Europeans.
· But such thought seems to have disappeared by the mid-19th century –
· and many European thinkers and leaders now shared the conviction that the white peoples of Europe are superior to the non-white peoples of the other parts of the world.
· At this time, Europeans were able to justify their exploitation of native peoples with such appeals to the moral burdens that their supposed superiority brought upon them.
· The phrase “White Man’s Burden,” coined by Rudyard Kipling in the late 19th century, gets to the heart of the idea.
· His 1899 poem by this name said:
Take up the White Man’s Burden
And reap his old reward
The name of those ye better
The Hate of those ye guard.
· Another passage:
Take up the White man's Burden
Go bind your sons to exile
To serve your captives' need
To wait in heavy harness,
On fluttered folk and wild
Your new caught sullen peoples
Half devil and half Child.
· The White Man, because he was supposedly imbued with a superior moral sense, was obligated to educate the “uncivilized” world.
· Here is one example of such thinking. In 1910 Jules Harmand, a French advocate of colonialism, said:
It is necessary, then, to accept as a principle and point of departure that there is a hierarchy of races and civilizations, and that we belong to the superior race and civilization, still recognizing that, while superiority confers rights, it imposes strict obligations in return. The basic legitimization of conquest over native peoples is the conviction of our superiority, not merely our mechanical, economic, and military superiority, but our moral superiority. Our dignity rests on that quality, and it underlies our right to direct the rest of humanity. Material power is nothing but a means to that end.
· If the Europeans felt themselves fortunate enough to be so much more advanced than the non-white peoples they encountered and traded with, then it was their duty as enlightened people and as Christians to bring civilization to these peoples.
· In many cases European traders were followed by missionaries who sought to convert the heathens to Christianity.
· The European colonizers thought that it was their duty to bring them European education, manners, and language.
· We can just call this the Europeans “civilizing mission.”
· Now let’s consider how imperialism—the age of High Imperialism—affected Africa in the late 19th century.
§ The process by which the European powers divided up the African continent was known as the “Scramble for Africa.”
§ In the year 1880, the overwhelming majority of Africa was still independent –
§ But by 1914, every country except for Ethiopia and Liberia was under European control.
· When we talk about the Scramble for Africa, most historians stress the role of Belgium’s King Leopold II.
§ Leopold ruled from 1865-1909, and sought to augment his tiny country’s power by gaining control over the Congo region – which was rich in mineral wealth.
§ Belgium’s neighbors were big – France, England, and Germany – and Belgium, he said, is “a small country with a small people.”
§ To enhance Belgium’s image, he wanted a colony.
· To accomplish this, in 1879 Leopold II sent the journalist Henry Stanley to sign treaties with local rulers – trade treaties, military alliances.
1. In order to gain acceptance for this from other European nations, Leopold claimed that he was interested mostly in eliminating the remnants of the Slave Trade.
2. He also said that he was doing this in the interest of furthering geographical knowledge—
3. And of showing the world the economic potential of goods from the tropics.
· But Leopold wasn’t fooling anyone –
§ And his actions in the Congo opened up the interior of Africa to European rivalries.
§ One year after the Belgians sent in Stanley, the French also went up the Congo River and claimed parts of the Congo River Basin.
§ The Portugal followed by claiming the mouth of the river.
· So the Scramble began.
· As European countries rushed to take over various parts of Africa, it became clear that some regulations would have t be set up – or else war would occur.
§ A short while later, in 1884, the German Chancellor Otto von Bismarck and other European leaders called the Berlin Conference.
§ It was attended by representatives of many European countries – especially those that had any interest in obtaining African colonies.
· The main purpose of the conference was to prevent war from breaking out between those countries engaged in this rivalry over Africa.
§ It is worth pointing out that no African representatives were present at the conference.
· The main thing that was accomplished was that Rules were set up for the European powers that wanted to expand into Africa.
§ First, any country holding a coastal settlement in Africa was given an advantage in seizing territory inland.
§ Second, the Conference set the conditions by which the occupation of a territory by one power could gain the recognition of the others.
· In other words, any territorial claims had to be supported by effective occupation, administration, and authority in the region.
· In addition, although the Conference DID recognize existing claims to African territories –
§ it did NOT award new territories or in any way “carve up” Africa.
§ The carving up of Africa instead happened in stages.
o Europeans would promise to sustain the local ruler against his enemies in exchange for a certain degree of control.
o In the case of such weak local rulers – princes, tribal chiefs – once such a deal was made, it was likely to become permanent.
· It is important to understand that while Western imperialism was resisted in many places -- for example in several of the small African kingdoms -- in many places the indigenous peoples actually helped the Europeans to set up shop.
· Some African leaders saw the Europeans as useful allies against their rivals for power, and were willing to let the European powers rule through them indirectly.
· But it was often also the case that the natives of Africa and Asia resisted the Europeans.
·
As one
observer put it:
·
Here is what
one British leader, Joseph Chamberlain, had to say in 1897:
o In carrying out this work of civilization
we are fulfilling what I believe to be our national mission, and we are finding
scope for the exercise of those faculties and qualities which have made us a
great governing race. I do not say that
our success has been perfect in every case, I do not say that all our methods
have been beyond reproach. But I do say
that in almost every instance…there has come…a greater security to life and property,
and a material improvement in the condition of the bulk of the population. No doubt…when these conquests have been made there has been bloodshed, there
has been loss of life among the native population, loss of still more precious
lives among those who have been sent
out to bring these countries into some kind of disciplined order., but it must
be remembered that that is the condition of the mission we have to fulfill….You
cannot have omelettes without breaking eggs; you cannot destroy the practices
of barbarism, of slavery, of superstition, which for centuries have desolated
the interior of Africa without the use of force; but if you will fairly
contrast the gain to humanity with the price…I think you may well rejoice….
· But imperialism as it was practiced was not the same everywhere.
· In some places it was more brutal than in others; in some places it was relatively peaceful.
· In some places European control was more formal, in others less formal.
· In some places, European empires were built by the deliberate actions of the state from the very beginning; in other cases we’ll see how power was passed from natives to trading companies and only then to the government of the imperialist country.
I. Traditional India
A. Religion
B. The Caste system
II. The Mughal State
A. Babur
B. Akbar
C. Mughal “Golden Age”
III. Initial European Encounters with India
Hinduism
Buddhism
Brahman
Islam
caste system
varna
Brahmin
Sudra
suttee
Mughal Empire
Babur (1483-1550)
Akbar (1542-1605)
Divine Faith
Aurangzeb (1618-1707)
omrah
· Over the next couple of days we are going to consider a case study of imperialism: the British in India.
· However, before discussing how the British came to rule India in the 18th and 19th centuries -- I thought we might take a step back and look at India itself as it existed at the time the Europeans’ ships sailed into her ports.
· Today we think of India as a country -- a territory administered by a single government -- like France, Argentina, or the USA.
· But we should keep in mind that India was not a “country” in this sense until after World War II.
· Historically, India has been a geographical region in South Asia encompassing many peoples with different languages and religions.
Geography.
· The Indian subcontinent is huge and is composed of topographical features -- mountains, rivers, plains, etc -- that vary from region to region.
· The heart of the subcontinent has always been in the north –
· where Indian civilization evolved
· and where most of India’s great empires and kingdoms were founded.
· Our story, however, starts in the 16th century, and at this time there is no “India” in the modern sense.
· Instead, let us just consider the term “India” to be a geographical and cultural construct -- which encompasses the subcontinent and its peoples.
· Now for a quick tour of India’s religions:
· The three main religions in India have traditionally been Hindusim, Buddhism, and Islam
· In the 16th century, like today, most of the peoples of the Indian subcontinent have been Hindu.
· Hinduism is difficult to define.
· Its roots stretch back over 2500 years, perhaps to around 500 BCE.
· It is not a church in the Western sense.
· There is no overarching organization (as in the Roman Catholic church)
· no dogma,
· no councils,
· no pope and no archbishops.
· Hinduism isn’t even necessarily a religious belief -- although Hinduism contains religion.
· It is more of a way of life.
· It has no beginning or founder,
· and it tolerates many different beliefs.
· Hindus often worship many gods.
· Most Hindus, however, believe in Brahman -- traditionally seen as the Creator of the Universe -- or the One who is the All.
· Although Hinduism has long been India’s dominant religion, Buddhism has also been important to India’s religious tradition.
· Buddhism developed from Hinduism in the 6th century BCE
· and in some ways is very similar to Hinduism.
· Like Hindus, Buddhists have no church or rituals.
· Buddhism is based on the teachings of Buddha –
· a prince who lived back in the 6th century BC – who was seeking Enlightenment.
· So the goal of the Buddhist is Enlightenment.
· Buddhists believe that suffering is the result of our attachment to earthly things.
· According to the Buddha, one must follow The Way in order to eliminate one’s suffering.
· Through a series of steps one can reach Nirvana.
· This is the Enlightened state at which existence ceases.
· It is a state beyond thought which frees one from the perpetual cycle of birth, suffering, death, and rebirth.
· The third major religion of the Indian subcontinent is Islam.
· The word “Islam” itself mans “to submit.”
· Although we often associate Islam with the Middle East, many people in India (or Pakistan today, which was once part of what we are referring to as India) also practice Islam -- particularly in the northern parts of the subcontinent.
· Islam was founded by the prophet Mohammed in the 7th century A.D.
· It began in the Arabian continent –
· and then in subsequent centuries spread to the rest of the Middle East, North Africa, Central Asia, and Southeast Asia.
· This religion is very different from Hinduism and Buddhism.
· For one thing, Islam incorporates elements of Judaic and Christian belief.
· Unlike Hindus and Buddhists, Muslims believe in only one god, called Allah.
· Another contrast to Hinduism is Islam’s reliance on a basic creed -- the Quran (tells Muslims how to live their lives)
· One of the main features of traditional Indian society is the concept of caste.
· Although the caste system is often considered to be a Hindu institution, it is not observed only by Hindus –
· in India castes exist among Christians, Sikhs, Buddhists, and Muslims as well.
·
So, what is
a Caste?
o
A Caste is a
hereditary group of social equals
o
A person’s
caste determined their social status.
§
Each caste
has its own rules of living, its own obligations, and often even their own
occupation –
§
and they
avoid contact with the other castes.
· The basis of the caste system lies in marriage restrictions –
· that is, members of one caste are forbidden from marrying people in lower castes.
· There are also restrictions on food, water, and touch.
· That is, one caste may not eat anything touched by anyone from a lower caste -- it is polluted.
·
There have
been thousands of different castes in India –
o but they have been divided into four
orders – or varna.
1.
At the top
were the Priests, known as Brahmins.
·
They claimed
a dominant role because they had the knowledge on how to please the Gods --
which we will soon mention.
·
They also
performed the rituals described in the Vedas.
2.
Below them
were the warriors.
·
This class
would also include political leaders – such as rajahs (kings)
3.
Third were
the commoners.
·
They were
merchants and free farmers and other commoners –
·
and they
paid taxes to the Warriors and the Brahmins.
4.
At the
bottom were the Sudras –
·
they
performed the hardest and most menial tasks.
o The Sudras were the bulk of the Indian
population –
o And traditionally their status was little
better than that of slaves.
·
Depending on
where you lived in the Punjab, the castes were divided into subcastes.
o For instance there were various grades of
nobility warriors
o and various grades of peasantry in some
regions.
·
Outside the
Caste system altogether were a group of people called Untouchables –
o The other orders considered them to be
dirty, polluted.
o They did the jobs that other Indians did
not want to do –
§
Such as
sweeping the street
§
or disposing
of garbage or human and animal waste,
§
handling
corpses, etc.
·
The name
meant that they could not touch people of the other varnas
o Or drink from their wells
o Or touch their food.
·
The caste
system still exists in India today –
o And it is very important for a person’s
basic sense of identity.
o Your caste defined who you were, and what
you would do with your life.
·
There was
very little social mobility -- at least not in this life.
o Expulsion from one’s caste - becoming an
outcast - was disaster.
o No other caste would accept you.
· Another important thing about the caste system that is related to Hindu -- and Buddhist -- beliefs is the belief in reincarnation.
· That is, reincarnation is the belief that one’s position in this life is related to behavior in previous lives.
· Now that we have become somewhat acquainted with traditional Indian society, let’s turn to the historical development of the Mughal Empire – not to be confused with the Mongol Empire.
· Between the 11th and 14th centuries the principalities of India had fallen victim to various Muslim invasions.
· When the dust settled, India remained a bunch of divided cities and principalities –
· sort of like much of Europe was at this time.
· As I mentioned earlier, there was as yet no concept of a unified Indian state.
· However, a great empire in the northern part of the subcontinent was begun by Babur.
· Babur was born in northwest India in 1483 -- this was the part of India that was generally Muslim.
· He himself was a Muslim.
· Babur started out as the prince of a tiny kingdom in the north.
· Babur had hoped to establish a Central Asian empire –
· as had existed under the great khans back in the days of the Mongols –
· but was thwarted by tribes in the northern Asian plain
· So he decided to turn south and east - to India.
· Babur took advantage of unrest in one of the northern the kingdoms –
· and undertook a series of raids in the 1520s.
· By the time he died in 1530, Babur was well established in the northern, Muslim parts of India.
· So historians often consider Babur to be the founder of the Mughal Empire –
· although he did not survive long enough to impress upon his people a particular administrative policy.
· Decades after Babur’s death -- in the 1560s and 1570s -- a series of wars continued the unification of the Indian subcontinent
· The credit for this goes to Akbar, a grandson of Babur.
· Akbar was also a Muslim who, like his grandfather, Babur, ruled the parts of India that were predominantly populated by Muslims.
· Akbar was also considered a great general, and he hoped to conquer the south.
· He believed quite simply that the more of India to come under his rule the better for all concerned.
· The problems was that as he expanded his empire further south -- he found that the Hindu population was unreconciled to the idea of being ruled by a Muslim.
(Ask class: If you were Akbar, and
you wanted to get the Hindu population to accept your rule, what would you do?)
· Akbar achieved dominion by treating the Hindus as equals and by showing respect for their institutions.
· He married the daughter of a Hindu noble,
· and made sure that the Hindu temples were protected.
· Under Akbar’s rule, the Mughal Emperor became the protector of all his people
· and the guardian of both the Muslim and Hindu religions.
· Akbar instituted a sort of cult of personality called Divine Faith.
·
It was a royal theosophy -- that is, the people were
supposed to have their main loyalties
go to the state.
· The significance of Divine Faith is that Akbar separated the crown from religion
· and put loyalty to the state above either of the two great religions.
· In this way, the empire could claim the equal allegiance of both religious communities.
· In this sense, we can see how Akbar’s Mughal Empire, by fashioning itself as the protector of both Hindus and Muslims equally, set up the ruling institutions that would help to make the rule of other foreigners possible -- foreigners who were neither Muslim nor Hindu.
· In the decades that followed the rule of Akbar, the Mughal emperors continued to expand into the southern, Hindu regions of the subcontinent.
· The ruler ho is most associated with this policy is Aurangzeb.
· Aurangzeb ruled in the late 17th and early 18th centuries -- for almost 50 years.
· By expanding into the south, Aurangzeb was continuing the tradition of Mughal emperors before him.
· But he did one important thing differently.
· Rather than treating the Hindus as equals as Akbar did, Aurangzeb merely tolerated them -- and was sometimes seen as hostile to the empire’s Hindus.
· Aurangzeb clearly did not like Hindus –
· and unlike Akbar, did not hesitate to show favoritism towards the empire’s Muslims.
· And because of this policy, he often had to deal with rebellions in the Hindu areas.
· In any event the 17th century was the “Golden Age” of Mughal India.
· The Mughal Golden Age wasn’t just about expansion and suppressing rebellions -- it was a dynamic culture.
· The business of government was to maintain order and to encourage the cultural life of India.
· It was different from Ming or Qing China in this sense.
· There was no idea of directing or shaping society (like Confucianism in China)
· Perhaps partly as a result of this approach to government, in the 17th century India was probably more prosperous as a whole than it had been for over a thousand years.
· The population of about 150 million in 1700 was greater than that of all Europe.
· And probably more than half that of China.
· The economy was basically as subsistence one.
· Its surplus produce was skimmed off by the government agents -- called omrahs (a sort of high official nobility) -- as Mughal revenue.
· India’s greatest products were cotton and silk cloth –
· And in fact this is what they traded abroad – to Persians, Africans, Chinese, and Europeans.
· But India also traded spices, sugar and rice.
· The European observer who landed in India in the 17th century would have found the following:
1. A good many great, populous cities -- which appeared to be overcrowded.
· Cities such as Calcutta and Bombay were in fact more cosmopolitan than contemporary European cities like London.
· The cities displayed great architecture and beautiful temples; one could also find Arabs, Turks, Persians, Afghans, blacks from Ethiopia, Mongols from Central Asia.
· One must keep in mind that the British came to India because they thought it was rich.
2. At the same time, one could also see extremes of poverty and wealth.
· Many rural areas were especially poor -- though perhaps no poorer than European villages.
3. In rural areas: large areas of wilderness or jungle
4. Varieties of dress, race, and custom.
· Again, India was cosmopolitan and diverse -- far more so than European cities.
5. The observer would see a predominantly male world;
· no upper and middle class women in the street.
· In Muslim areas women were secluded.
6. Islam dominated the towns except in Hindu religious centers and in the south.
· This is the civilization the Europeans encountered when they began to interact with the peoples of India in the 16th and 17th and 18th centuries.
· They saw signs of a great civilization, such as the Taj Mahal,
· and they witnessed a great deal of economic activity on the part of the people in India.
· The Indians could boast of a great civilization with ancient traditions.
· And the standard of living in India was roughly on a par with that of Western Europe in the 16th century.
·
It was not simply a matter of rich Europeans conquering the poor Indians.
· Europeans also quickly learned of customs that they thought to be barbaric,
· such as arranged child marriages –
· And the suttee – the custom whereby Hindu widows were expected to throw themselves on the funeral pyres of their husbands.
· Overall, however. we should keep in mind that when the Europeans first came to India, they did not encounter an “inferior” civilization.
· At this point, the Europeans had not yet attained their technological edge –
· Or a sense of intellectual or cultural superiority that came with it – as they would by the 19th century.
· In fact, at first the Europeans were hardly even considered to be a threat to the leaders of Mughal India.
· But it is true that the Europeans who encountered India in the 17th and 18th centuries had come into contact with a civilization that was beginning to go into decline –
· And the Europeans – the British in particular – would use this fact to their advantage.
· Later, we’ll talk about the initial British encounters with India – and how the British came to rule India.
· But we should remember that the British weren’t the first Europeans to reach South Asia.
· Before them were the Portuguese and the Dutch.
· In their exploration of the area around the Indian Ocean, the Portuguese were the first of the Europeans to come into contact with the Indians.
· The Portuguese sailor Vasco da Gama arrived at Calicut in 1498, seeking “Christians and spices.”
· The Portuguese were both crusaders and traders.
· The Portuguese set up the capital of the Estado de India at (Goa) –
· And they brought their culture with them – especially Christianity.
· Although they never attempted large-scale conquest of India, the Portuguese did impinge upon Indian affairs
· and sometimes behaved rather cruelly.
· Which seems to be typical of the Portuguese wherever they went.
· The Portuguese ruled the south Asian seas for a century -- the entire 16th century and into the 17th.
· This was possible partly because the Indian kingdoms hadn’t done much to build up their own navies or merchant fleets.
· The Mughals were never able to control the sea -- so they hired Europeans to control trade.
· But as far as the Portuguese go -- there were fewer than a million Portuguese at that time –
· and as a result they became overstrained
· and could no longer maintain the costs of many of their overseas commercial enterprises.
· Their reputation for cruelty probably didn’t help matters any –
· for example, they introduced the Inquisition in Goa, --
· which probably did little to win over the Indians.
· As we will see, the Mughals were quick to cast their lot with the British in order to keep the Portuguese out.
· Next were the Dutch and the British.
· In the 1590s, the Dutch East India Company was granted a royal charter –
· and went straight for spice trade of East Indies –
· taking over from the Portuguese.
· In some ways the Dutch were very different from the Portuguese.
· When they arrived in Southeast Asia in the 1596, their outlook was strictly commercial.
· They weren’t interested in saving souls – only in making money.
· And there was money to be made in the Spice Trade of Southeast Asia.
*** But what is important about the Dutch presence in East Indies at this time -- is that their domination of the East Indian spice trade compelled the English to concentrate on India.