Humanitarian Measures by Britishers in pre-1857 India

This section shifts from broad policy debates to the actual humanitarian interventions the British undertook before 1857, and it also shows a recurring theme:
most reforms came not because London or the East India Company wanted them, but because of pressure from Western-educated Indians, missionaries, and individual officials.

Let’s discuss it:

Before 1813, British policy was mostly non-interference, but certain inhuman customs in Indian society became too visible to ignore. In these cases, local administrators, missionaries, and reformers pushed for change — though often the reforms were limited in scope and impact.

Suppression of Female Infanticide

Practice:

• Killing female infants at birth, common among certain Rajput clans and other castes.
• Root causes:
  • Heavy dowry burden.
  • High marriage expenses for girls.

Early Efforts:

• Jonathan Duncan (Benares Resident):
  • Convinced Rajkumar Rajputs (1789) and Jadeja Rajputs (1808) to sign written pledges abandoning the practice.
• William Carey (missionary at Fort William) argued strongly for abolition.

Legislative Action:

• Regulations passed in 1795, 1802, and 1804, but enforcement was weak.
• William Bentinck (1828–35) and Henry Hardinge (1844–48) enforced bans more firmly.
• Hardinge also suppressed human sacrifice among the Gonds.
• Continued prevalence → Female Infanticide Prevention Act, 1870.

Key Point:

This reform originated locally, not in London, and success was regionally uneven — effective in Bengal, weak elsewhere.

Abolition of Sati

Practice:

• Widow burning on the funeral pyre of her husband.
• Widespread in all three Presidencies.

Steps Towards Abolition:

• 1795: H. T. Colebrooke argued Sati was not truly sanctioned by Vedic tradition.
• 1813: Minimum age set at 16; mothers of children under 3 restricted unless guardianship arranged.
• Raja Rammohun Roy:
  • Used his journal Samwad Kaumudi to argue against Sati.
  • Debated defenders like Kasinath Tarkavagish (1819).
• 1829: Under pressure from reformers and missionaries, William Bentinck passed the Bengal Sati Regulation, making Sati illegal.

Earlier Attempts:

Even Akbar, Jahangir, Peshwas, and the Portuguese in Goa had tried to discourage it.

Modern Echo:

• Roop Kanwar case (1987, Rajasthan) led to the Commission of Sati (Prevention) Act, 1987 — banning both the practice and its glorification.

Abolition of Slavery

Context:

• Varied forms:
  • Bombay & Calcutta: part of trade (slaves from Arabia & Africa).
  • Madras: agricultural (predial) slavery.

British & Global Context:

• 1792: France abolishes slavery in colonies.
• 1807: Britain ends the trans-Atlantic slave trade.
• 1833: Britain abolishes slavery in all colonies.

India:

• Company reluctant to abolish — claimed it was “traditional” with religious sanction.
• 1843: Act V abolishes slavery in India — but impact was limited.
• Larger decline came from new employment opportunities in plantations and public works in the late 19th century.

Hindu Widow Remarriage

Key Leader:

• Ishwar Chandra Vidyasagar:
  • Used ancient texts to justify remarriage rights.
  • Led public campaigns and petitioned government.

Outcome:

• 1856: Hindu Widows’ Remarriage Act passed — legally allowing remarriage.

Assessment of These Humanitarian Reforms

• Motivation: Mostly driven by local reformers, missionaries, and sympathetic administrators — not by the British Parliament or Company headquarters.
• Scope: Very limited — reforms rarely reached rural society or altered deep-rooted social structures.
• Impact: Immediate effects negligible; long-term change came slowly, often through Indian social reform movements rather than colonial enforcement.
• Political Calculation: Even the most “progressive” reforms were implemented cautiously to avoid backlash and protect British rule.

💡 UPSC Insights:

Questions often frame these reforms in the context of:

• Role of Indian reformers vs. British officials.
• Cautious nature of colonial interventions.
• Link between humanitarian rhetoric and political motives.
• Regional variation in impact.