Administrative Policies after 1857 in British India

A Shift in Attitude

• Before 1857: The British, at least formally, attempted some “modernising” efforts — like introducing Western education, railways, or limited social reform. These were often half-hearted and primarily meant to strengthen colonial control, but they still gave Indians some scope for progress.
• After 1857: That approach changed. The British became fearful and defensive. They believed reforms had gone “too far” and helped create unrest. So, they turned to policies designed to divide Indians, suppress educated classes, and ally with conservative forces.

Divide and Rule

This was the cornerstone of British strategy, both in conquest and in governance.

• How it worked:
  The British played one group against another — princes vs. people, province vs. province, caste vs. caste, Hindus vs. Muslims.
• Why it became stronger after 1857:
  The Revolt had shown the dangerous potential of Hindu–Muslim unity. The British were determined never to let such unity rise again.
• Practical steps:
  • Immediately after the revolt, Muslims were especially punished: lands confiscated, properties seized, and their influence curtailed. Hindus were favoured in comparison.
  • But after 1870, the policy shifted — now the British tried to win over upper-class Muslims by granting them concessions and portraying Congress as a “Hindu organisation.”
  • In jobs, education, and opportunities, the government encouraged communal competition. Loyalty to the British was rewarded with communal favours, ensuring educated Hindus and Muslims mistrusted each other.

👉 This calculated policy of divide and rule weakened the growing nationalist movement.

Hostility to Educated Indians

• Earlier Attitude (before 1857):
  The British had actively promoted modern education. Macaulay’s reforms, Wood’s Despatch, and the establishment of universities in 1857 (Calcutta, Bombay, Madras) reflected this policy. Educated Indians were even praised for staying aloof during the revolt.
• Changed Attitude (after 1857):
  As educated Indians started using Western knowledge to critique imperialism and to demand participation in administration, the British grew alarmed.
  • By the 1870s–80s, these educated Indians had become the backbone of the early nationalist movement.
  • The founding of the Indian National Congress in 1885 marked a turning point: the British now regarded educated Indians as political opponents, not allies.
• Official response:
  The government tried to curtail higher education and actively opposed the intelligentsia. This revealed that British rule had already lost its “progressive potential” — it was no longer a modernising force but a reactionary regime.

Attitude towards Zamindars and Princes

While turning against educated Indians, the British began to cultivate alliances with the most conservative elements of Indian society — the princes, zamindars, and landlords.

• They were hailed as the “natural leaders” of Indian society.
• Their privileges were protected, and in some cases expanded. For example, many talukdars of Awadh, who had lost lands during the revolt, had their estates restored.
• In return, zamindars and princes became firm supporters of the British, since their very power now depended on colonial protection.

👉 Thus, the British created a counterbalance against the nationalist intelligentsia — progressive Indians were suppressed, while reactionary elites were patronised.

Attitude towards Social Reforms

• Before 1857: The British had intervened in certain social issues — e.g., abolition of Sati (1829), permission for widow remarriage (1856). Though often controversial, these reforms were associated with modernising impulses.
• After 1857: The British believed such interventions had partly caused the revolt by angering orthodox sections of society.
  • Hence, they withdrew support from reformers and sided increasingly with conservative opinion.
  • As Jawaharlal Nehru later observed in The Discovery of India:

The British became “guardians of reaction,” protecting social evils they themselves condemned in principle.

Thus, colonial power allied itself with orthodoxy, slowing down the progress of Indian society.

Neglect of Social Services

While Europe in the 19th century saw rapid progress in education, health, sanitation, and infrastructure, India remained far behind.

• Why?
  Because the Indian government spent the bulk of its revenue on:
  • the army,
  • expensive wars of expansion, and
  • maintaining the colonial administrative machinery.
• Social services got minimal attention, and whatever little was provided was restricted to urban elites. Villages and the poor remained neglected.

👉 This is why India entered the 20th century with extremely backward social indicators compared to Europe.

Labour Legislation

Miserable Working Conditions

In the 19th century, Indian workers in factories and plantations lived under terrible conditions:

• 12–16 hour workdays, no weekly rest.
• Women and children forced to work the same long hours as men.
• Low wages, often below subsistence level.
• Overcrowded, unhygienic factories, poorly lit and ventilated.
• Hazardous machines caused frequent accidents.

This was almost a form of modern-day slavery.

Why Did the British Pass Factory Laws?

Interestingly, the demand for regulation did not come from Indian workers but from British manufacturers in London.

• They feared that India’s cheap labour would give Indian industries a competitive advantage.
• To prevent this, they pressed the colonial government to pass Factory Acts, but these were half-hearted and designed more to protect British industry than Indian workers.

Factory Act of 1881

This was the first factory law in India, though very limited in scope.

• Addressed mainly child labour:
  • Children under 7: completely banned from factory work.
  • Children 7–12: work limited to 9 hours per day.
  • Four holidays per month.
• Some safety measures, like fencing dangerous machinery.
• Applied only to factories with 100+ workers.

👉 In reality, the law was extremely weak and left most workers outside its scope.

Factory Act of 1891

This slightly expanded protections:

• Women’s work hours fixed at 11 per day.
• Children below 9 could not be employed.
• Children 9–14: daily work hours reduced to 7.
• Weekly holiday made compulsory.
• Applied to factories with 50+ workers.

👉 Still, adult male workers had no limit on working hours. Exploitation continued almost unchecked.

Plantation Labour & Penal Laws

• Ironically, these Acts did not apply to tea and coffee plantations, mostly European-owned.
• On plantations, workers were treated like bonded slaves.
• Penal laws (1863, 1865, 1870, 1873, 1882) ensured that:
  • Once a labourer signed a contract, he could not refuse work.
  • Breach of contract was a criminal offence.
  • Planters even had the power to arrest workers.

👉 Thus, while the government pretended to regulate factories, it actively helped foreign planters exploit Indian labour.

Later Developments

• By the 20th century, the rise of trade unions and nationalist politics forced the government to pass better labour laws.
• Yet, conditions of Indian workers remained deplorable, showing how colonial rule prioritised profit over welfare.

Restrictions on the Press

Early Freedom

• The British had introduced the printing press, and Indians quickly realised its potential as a tool for spreading ideas.
• By 1835, under Charles Metcalfe, the press was freed from heavy restrictions.
• Educated Indians started newspapers, which became platforms for public opinion and nationalist critique.

Clash with Nationalists

• As the press began to expose the injustices of British rule and mobilise nationalism, the government grew hostile.
• Vernacular Press Act (1878):
  • Imposed strict controls on Indian-language newspapers.
  • Allowed the government to confiscate presses and censor publications.
  • Triggered widespread protests.
  • Repealed in 1882 after strong opposition.
• For about 25 years after this repeal, the press enjoyed relative freedom.
• But with the rise of the Swadeshi and Boycott movement (1905 onwards), the government brought back repressive press laws in 1908 and 1910.

👉 This shows the recurring pattern: whenever the press strengthened nationalism, the government struck back with censorship.

Racial Antagonism – White Racism

• The British in India considered themselves racially superior.
• Everyday life reflected this racial divide:
  • Separate compartments in railways.
  • Separate waiting rooms, parks, hotels, swimming pools, and clubs reserved for “Europeans only.”
• Indians were openly excluded from higher posts in administration.
• This white racism was not only humiliating but also fuelled nationalist anger, as it exposed the deep hypocrisy of a colonial power claiming to be “civilising” India while treating its people as inferior.

British Policy Towards the Princely States

Two Types of Territories

During British rule, India was not a single unified political entity. It was divided into:

1. British Indian Provinces – directly ruled by the British government.
2. Princely States – ruled by Indian princes but under indirect British control.

Policy Before 1857 – Annexation and Expansion

Between 1757 and 1857, the East India Company constantly expanded its territory. Direct conquest was rare; instead, annexation was achieved by political and legal tricks:

1. Subsidiary Alliance (introduced by Wellesley): Indian rulers had to maintain British troops at their own expense; failure to pay meant ceding territory.
2. Paramountcy: The Company claimed to be the supreme authority (paramount power) and could annex kingdoms under this justification.
3. Doctrine of Lapse (by Dalhousie): If a ruler died without a natural male heir, his kingdom automatically “lapsed” into Company territory.
4. Alleged Duty: The Company sometimes claimed it was “obliged by duty” to annex a state for the welfare of its people — e.g., Awadh was annexed in 1856 under the pretext of “misgovernment.”

👉 In short, before 1857, the policy was aggressive territorial expansion.

Policy After 1857 – Preservation and Subordination

The Revolt of 1857 brought a dramatic change. Why? Because most Indian princes remained loyal to the British during the uprising and helped suppress it.

So, the British reversed their approach:

• Annexations stopped; princes were assured that their states would not be taken over.
• The right of rulers to adopt heirs was recognised (abandoning the Doctrine of Lapse).
• In 1876, Queen Victoria assumed the title “Empress of India”, symbolising British supremacy over both British India and the Princely States.

But this loyalty came at a price:

• Princes had to accept British paramountcy (suzerainty).
• They were “junior partners” in the Empire — allowed to rule internally, but always under the shadow of British authority.

👉 Lord Curzon made it blunt: princes were nothing more than agents of the British Crown.

British Interference in Princely States

Although annexation stopped, interference did not. The British Residents in the princely courts:

• Controlled appointments and dismissals of ministers and high officials.
• Monitored day-to-day administration.
• Justified interference in the name of:
  1. Giving states a “modern administration” aligned with British India.
  2. Preventing the rise of democratic or nationalist movements in these states.

Thus, while outward sovereignty was preserved, real independence was absent.

Examples of Changed Policy

1. Mysore

• Before 1857:
  • After Tipu Sultan’s death in 1799, Mysore was forced into Subsidiary Alliance.
  • In 1831, Lord Bentinck deposed the Raja and took direct control.
• After 1857:
  • In 1868, the adopted heir of the old ruler was recognised.
  • In 1881, under Lord Ripon, the state was restored to the young Maharaja.

2. Baroda

• In 1874, Malhar Rao Gaekwad (the ruler) was accused of misrule and of attempting to poison the British Resident.
• He was deposed — but the state was not annexed.
• Instead, another Gaekwad family member was installed as ruler.

👉 These cases illustrate the shift: before 1857, misrule would mean annexation; after 1857, it only meant deposition and replacement, but the princely state itself was preserved.

Conclusion

In essence, the administrative policies of the British after 1857 reflected a regime that had become deeply defensive and reactionary. The fear generated by the Revolt made the rulers abandon even their earlier half-hearted modernising efforts.

Instead, they consolidated power through divide and rule, hostility towards educated Indians, alliances with princes and landlords, and withdrawal from social reform. Labour legislation, press restrictions, and racial discrimination further exposed the exploitative and repressive character of colonial rule.

Even in the princely states, annexation gave way to preservation, but only under strict subordination to the Crown. Together, these policies reveal that by the late 19th century, British rule had ceased to be a progressive force and had become primarily an instrument of control, exploitation, and obstruction to India’s social and political advancement.