ADVERTISEMENTS:
In this article we will discuss about the Legacies that were left behind by the System of British Rule in India
Legacy of Leadership:
In the Indian context the first important legacy that India got was that of the leadership. During freedom struggle there were two major political organisations which always drew the admiration of their own admirers and had large following; namely, the Indian National Congress and the Muslim League.
The policies and programmes of the League with the passage of time became communal. Leadership in the organisation openly declared that it wanted to have a separate homeland for the Muslims. It also declared that the Hindus and the Muslims are two separate nations and both have separate cultures, customs and traditions.
Both cannot live together because the Hindus majority will always try to dominate and control the Muslim minority. The League’s communal character was not at all hidden one and there was nothing secret in that.
When India was divided and some Muslim population from India migrated to Pakistan with that the influence and impact of communal policies in India was expected to considerably come down. It was, however, too much to believe that all of a sudden communal feelings would come to an end. Accordingly these continued and are still continuing.
Then came Indian National Congress. Its leadership included people like Mahatma Gandhi, Jawahar Lal Nehru, Sardar Vallabh Bhai Patel, Dr. Rajendra Prasad and many others. During freedom struggle all of them and the whole organisation maintained that since centuries in India the Hindus and the Muslims have been living together.
Not only these two communities but the Sikhs, Christians, Parsees and other religious communities are sons of Mother India. They have every right to live on this soil without any discrimination.
The organisation believed in human equality and in no discrimination of the people on the basis of caste, creed and religion. It believed in secular character of India. In fact, Cripps, Wavell and Cabinet Missions failed because Congress did not agree that it was only a Hindu and not a national organisation.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
The result of all this was that when India was partitioned, Indian National Congress remained on the forefront. Obviously the organisation which remained secular during freedom struggle could not become communal and non-secular all of a sudden.
Therefore, when Constituent Assembly started its work and took upon itself the responsibility of giving a Constitution to the people of India, this legacy played a very big role. The Assembly had to think in terms of secularism alone.
It was on account of this legacy that it was provided in the Constitution that all citizen of India are equal in all respect. The Hindus who formed about 90% of the total Indian population were given no special rights, in spite of the fact that they had to undergo untold sufferings during national struggle for freedom It was provided that all positions and jobs in the country will be filled on the basis of ability of the person concerned, without caring for caste, creed and religion.
Similarly it was this legacy which became responsible for making India a secular State in which it was provided that the State will have no religion of its own. Each person will be free to worship in the manner he or she liked and that State assistance in any form will not be made available on the basis of religion.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
Since religion had no consideration with the State, therefore, no seats were reserved for any religious community in public positions or elected bodies or anywhere else, not even for women.
Again it was due to this legacy that political stability came in India. After the partition of the country there was great upheaval. India had been divided on the basis of religion. There was communal hatred. Regionalism and lingualism was the order of the day.
The whole out-look had been made very narrow. In fact, fissiparous tendencies and forces of instability were very active to take advantage of the situation. Anti-national and anti-social elements were very active and wanted to as much prolong the period of instability and uncertainty in the country as possibly it could be.
In international field both the power blocs were quite keen to increase their sphere of influence and make India a play-ground for their power politics. Since leadership in India was in close touch with the people, therefore, such tendencies could be checked effectively.
The leaders, however, knew the wishes of the people and were aware that the forces of disintegration were not very strong and also that basically the people of India needed unity and peace. Strain on national unity after partition was just a passing phase.
It was again on account of the strength of leadership that Sardar Patel could convince Indian princes to get themselves merged in the newly born State of India and the people and territories which India lost by way of Pakistan got back by way of merger of states.
Parliamentary form of government in India is also indebted to Indian leadership. It was a time when Indian leadership was to take a basic decision,namely, whether to have unitary or a federal form of government. Congress leaders were so popular among the people that they could take a decision in either way and that was willingly accepted by the people.
Jawahar Lal Nehru and many others who were at the helm of affairs in those days, loved democracy and democratic means and methods for ascertaining the wishes of the people of India. Leadership in India in those days felt that future set-up of India should be parliamentary rather than presidential form of government because the latter had more inclination towards dictatorship than the former.
It also decided that for a big country like India federal set-up was more suitable than the unitary one. This was really an important legacy which was given by the leadership to the people of India.
It was also due to country’s leadership that India decided to be a secular stale and country could get political stability. It was again due to leadership that India decided to opt for parliamentary rather than presidential system of government.
In fact, country could get a Constitution so smoothly and quickly only because of leadership. Because of towering personalities of leaders of those days the people adopted the Constitution without any hesitation. Pakistan, which got freedom with India got a Constitution much later than India because of lack of good leadership.
Centre-State Relations:
Then another legacy which old system left was in the field of Centre-State relations. India had passed through very difficult times of communal hatred and disharmony. It was a period of turmoil for India.
During the course of all negotiations with British government and the Muslim League, the thinking all along had been that India should be a federal State. In this state the provinces should be strong whereas there should be a weak Centre.
In fact, in the scheme of things only few important subjects like the External Affairs, Defence, Finance and Transport and Communication systems were to be retained by the Centre; whereas all other subjects, including residuary subjects were also to be left with the provinces.
It was policy of appeasement and concessions to communal politics so as to avoid partition of the country. But this policy did not prove a success. India was ultimately divided. But a legacy was left behind.
The leadership in India now was faced with the problem of centre-state relationship i.e., whether in free India centre should be weak or strong. It was felt that a weak centre shall not be capable of dealing with the problems which faced free India. Being a vast country and a house divided in itself, there was no guarantee that communal elements which had raised their head during freedom struggle will not rise again.
Similarly it was felt that the partition of the country had left many social, economic and political problems which needed a strong centre to deal with. Leadership on the one hand and founding fathers of the Constitution on the other felt it unavoidable to have a strong centre and weak states in the new set up.
Accordingly centre was made so powerful that even some critics have gone to the extent of saying that in India states are glorified municipalities and that India is a quasi-federal state. Not only this, but some states are demanding more autonomy. At this stage suffice to say that a strong centre is the legacy of past circumstances.
Had independence of India not come in the way in which it actually came, perhaps central government in India would not have been as strong, as today it is. On the other hand, states would have been far more stronger.
Blending of Religious, Social and Political Systems:
Then another legacy of the system is blending of social and political systems. In fact, such a blending is found even in the so-called advanced societies of the world as well.
History is a witness that in England in the past there was a bitter struggle for some time between the church and the sovereign and ultimately it was found that both could not be separated from each-other. No Sovereign in England could rule peacefully and comfortably by antagonising the church.
The sovereign must have an unquestionable faith in the church of England. In the whole Muslim world there is very close blending of religion and the state. The state must enforce the principles enunciated and expounded in holy religious books.
In a Muslim state, the head of the state must be a Muslim and it is both his religious and political duty to champion the cause of Islam. Muslim states of the world are knit together in a system of brotherhood, ready to help and defend each-other at the time of need and necessity.
In India there has been blending of religion with politics since times immemorial. Hindu religious books make it amply clear that in the past rajas used to have gurus who were religious heads and had attained perfection in the religious field. Commands of religious leaders could not be disobeyed. In fact, on the appearance of a saint or a rishi in the darbars the rajas used to leave their throne.
The Rajas, who were political heads used to perform Yajnas and every other religious ceremony only under the guidance of the Brahmins. It was then difficult to, separate religious and temporal powers and authorities. At that time out of four castes, namely, the Brahmin, the Khatriya, the Vaishya and the Shudras, the first mentioned one enjoyed maximum respect and authority.
This position prevailed throughout Hindu period. The blending then helped both the cause of morality and strengthened political system in those days. Religious authority proved a significant check on political authority.
Then came Muslim era. By this time caste system in India had become not only very rigid, but also had considerably degenerated itself. The Sudra caste had practically gone out of social and political system.
This caste people lived outside the city and away from political hob web. But other caste people in Hindu society dominated state. The Khatriyas controlled the politics but still could not violate religious dictates as expounded by the Brahmins.
Every important political activity and action started with some religious ceremony. Kshatriya who had so far remained away from political life had also started flowing in political stream. The Badshahs were Muslims first and rulers afterwards.
A Muslim king came on the throne to promote Islam and propagate teachings of Holy Quran. It was the duty of the king to economically uplift the Muslims. Alauddin Khilji felt proud in reducing the Hindus in utter poverty. Throughout Muslim era there was absolute blending of religion with politics. The influence of ulamas and maulvis in the darbars was really great and of considerable significance and importance.
Next came the British period. During this period deliberate attempt made to divide Hindu society on caste basis and make the so-called low caste people caste conscious. The society was still divided into castes. Not only had this but during this period caste politics begun to play a very pre-dominant role. In addition, communal politics came to the front.
The Muslim communal politics dominated the whole political scene in India from the beginning of the present century till the time in 1947 when India was partitioned.
Every political activity was measured on the yard stick of religion, caste and community. It became almost impossible to divorce the two from each-other. Seats in the legislative bodies, posts and positions in the public services were all adjusted and given on communal basis.
The Sikhs, the Muslims, the Parsees, the Christians, the Anglo-Indians all thought in terms of their own religion rather than India as a whole. There was reservation of seats for landlords, the scheduled castes, etc. as well.
There was then no question of religious toleration or that of mutual adjustment and understanding. Religion and politics got completely merged with each-other and to separate one from the other was an impossibility.
This blending of religion with politics came to new political system as a legacy of the old. When India became free, everything, every system and every institution was thought in term of religion and community. The task before the nation, therefore, was whether India should be a theocracy or a secular state.
Since the Muslims had got their home-land therefore, there was every justification that India should be homeland of the Hindus and the supporters of this argument were very many in India. But India decided to be a secular state. In spite of this there is still much blending of religion with politics. Caste is still a predominating factor in Indian political life.
In elections voters vote in many cases on the basis of caste and religion. Political parties, while picking up candidates for fielding in elections, take caste and religion of the candidate into consideration even today. Not only this, but in Ministry formation process the caste and religion play a big role.
Scheduled caste still has reservations of seats both in political field and in public services. This is, in fact, a factor which is disturbing Indian political life today. Prof. M.N. Srinivas is of the view that caste system in India is on the increase and is not decreasing, as is claimed by some of our politicians. It is maintained by a vast section of Indian society that politicians themselves encourage caste and religion in political life.
They go to the religious heads of different sects to seek their blessings and co-operation of their followers at the time of elections. They make them promises which they try to fulfill after the elections and thus encourage caste and religious differences. Not only castes but sub-castes are also recognised and encouraged. This is all the legacy of the past to the new system.
Steel Frame Work of Bureaucracy:
Steel frame work of bureaucracy is another legacy of past to the present system of administration. Britishers came to India as traders. Gradually they became the masters of India and immediate problem for them was how to govern the vast empire which laid exposed to them.
It was a difficult situation because, on the one hand, the Company was to administer territories, on the other, it was to make conquests and wage wars against Indian rulers and still another task was to exploit the people.
The number of Britishers who could stay in India was much less than what Indian administration needed. The situation did not much improve in this respect after the transfer of power from the company to the crown. The basic structure remained the same.
All senior posts were manned by the Britishers who began to be drawn from Indian Civil Service. But in fact these personnel were neither Indian, nor civil nor servants. They were masters of the country. Each head of the office was assisted by his subordinate officers. Lower posts were manned by Indians.
The system was almost as follows:
Number of senior officers in each category differed depending upon the nature and volume of work. There was strict discipline in every walk of life. Each officer was expected to obey the commands of his senior officer. He could make suggestions but not expected to grudge if these were not accepted.
The policy followed was that of awe and majesty of the superior and not of mutual understanding. Each one was supposed to be neutral in politics and ensure that his work was not influenced by political upheavals on the one hand and change of personnel on the other.
The governments might come or go but his neutrality was not to be affected in any manner. Each one was required to maintain absolute secrecy and hierarchical system was strictly followed. Each senior officer was expected to maintain a distance from his lower or junior officer. Common man for whom the administration was required to work was least cared.
This is another legacy of the old, which India got at the time of independence. Today also the same hierarchical system prevails in the government offices. Even now also it is an accepted fact of Indian administration that public servants should be neutral in politics.
The governments may come or go but public servants will continue to work in steel frame work of rules. Change of personnel at any level should not effect his working.
He should act according to the rules as enacted by the legislature from time to time. He has even now the right to suggest and express his views for the consideration of his superiors, but ultimate responsibility is always that of the decision-maker and if the suggestion given is not accepted, there should be no grouse or grudge.
Discipline in public services is still considered basis of efficient administration. Each department has different categories of employees, and each one required to perform his/her assigned duties.
A Federal System:
India is a vast country. Since times past the country is considered a sub-continent and a cradle of different clusters. In a federation usually there are small scattered units, which have their own problems and powers but are quite independent of each other.
These are geographically nearer to each-other and politically these have more or less similar views. Not only this, but the units are sovereign and have a desire to come nearer and closer to each other but do not wish to end their individual identity.
They wish to combine so as to economically rise and be strong enough to preserve their individuality. But in the case of India situation was altogether different. There was nothing which could be called a pre-requisite of a federation. But still due to historical reasons it was felt that unitary form of government was not suited to Indian conditions because of the vastness of the country.
A federal system in India was envisaged both under the Acts of 1909 and 1919. Nehru Report presented in 1929 also envisaged that India should be a federation. Subsequently when three Round-Table Conferences were convened in London it was proposed that India should be a federation.
As communal politics got momentum it was believed by British masters that only way out of the difficult constitutional problem was a federal polity with a weak Centre. After independence this legacy was also passed on to the new system.
The framers of Indian Constitution had to work in an atmosphere in which it was almost taken for granted that federal system of government was suited to India. Of course, major change that they thought was that in the proposed federation there should be a strong rather than a weak Centre.
Such a strong Centre should be in a position to deal with all difficult situations, which might arise internally as well as externally. In this way it can be said that preference of constitution fathers for a federal polity in India over the unitary system was the legacy of the old system.
Politics of Poverty:
Then another legacy of the old system to the present generation is the politics of poverty. Garibi Hatao slogan or preference for programme of ending unemployment within ten years or work to at least one member of a family under Nehru Rozgar Scheme or promise of right to work have become very popular slogans.
In fact, electorates are very much allured and attracted by these slogans. But again this is the legacy of the past India has always lived in poverty and living standard of the people has always remained very low. But our freedom fighters always gave hopes to the people that in free India there would be no poverty. Everybody will be provided adequate wages and work.
In addition, the gulf between the rich and the poor will be narrowed down. Thus, in India there was no time when poverty was not mixed with politics. Both have all along gone with each other. This is thus another legacy of the past and this legacy is continuing today.
British government in India always tried to tell the world that it was staying in India only to raise living standard of the people and to industrialise the country so that its poverty came to an end, though in practice it just did the reverse.
But the politics of poverty has always remained on the fore front. Our national leaders always tried to attract masses towards themselves on the plea that the British government was deliberately trying to drain out India’s wealth and keeping the masses poor so that they had no time to participate in freedom struggle.
Dada Bhai Naoroji, Lokmanya Tilak, Jawahar Lal Nehru, Mahatma Gandhi and all other national leaders, both in their speeches and writings portrayed the scene of India’s poverty and this politics of poverty has come to stay in India-today.
Departmentalisation:
Then another legacy of the past is that of departmentalisation. Under the British government whole governmental activity was divided into different departments. Each department was created according to its need and necessity.
Some such departments were Foreign Affairs, Political Affairs, Home, Defence, Education and Health, etc. Each department was under the control of an executive councilor of Viceroy’s executive council.
He was to see that his department worked well. For all failures and acts of omissions and commissions he was to explain his position to the Governor-General and through him to the Secretary of State. He was the key man and policy-maker of his department and every activity of the department revolved around him.
This legacy has been passed on to the present political system as well. Today whole governmental activity is divided into departments. Some such departments are External Affairs, Defence, Home, Railways, Finance, Education, Labour, etc.
Each department is headed by a Minister, who again is the key man and whole activity of his department revolves round him. For all his acts of omission and commission he is responsible to the Prime Minister, his cabinet colleagues and then to the Parliament.
It is another matter that on account of joint and collective responsibility of the cabinet he may not be forced to leave his ministerial post. But the system of departmentalisation, which was the pivot of British administration in India, has come to the present system as legacy.
Along with departmental system the country has also received red tapism as a legacy, which today has resulted in large scale corruption in government offices.
Casteism and Regionalism:
Casteism and regionalism is another inheritance of the British rule to modem India. The Britishers in their best interest and to suit their requirements decided to follow the policy of divide and rule. British bureaucracy followed this at every level. At the communal level they divided India into different communities and introduced in body politic the system of separate electorate instead of joint electorate system.
They, thus, never allowed any religious community to come nearer and closer to the other. As if this was not enough they encouraged the policy of regionalism and casteism, so that the people of one region quarrelled with the other.
Not only this, but they also gave encouragement to casteism, so that the people of different castes within the same religion quarreled with each other and India was never one united nation. Many British political leaders quite often said that India was not one country, but a geographical entity like Europe, Asia and Africa, etc.
Today India thinks not only in terms of castes and classes but also in terms of creamy and non-creamy castes and also on the lines of advanced and backward classes. The forces of regionalism are becoming very strong as is clear from the emergence of regional political and religious party which enjoy good popularity.
Thus, infant independent India inherited much from the Britishers at the time of partition of the country. Both casteism and regionalism are still exerting their pressure on country’s political system and that too in spite of the fact that government is trying its best and adopting every mean and method to end these evils, so that every Indian thinks of India first, and thereafter caste or region.
It will take some time more before casteism and regionalism disappears from the country.
System of Reservation:
The British government in its own interest introduced the system of reservation of seats. Its only aim then was to keep Indians divided. The reservation of seats in elected bodies and services in the first instance was on communal basis but subsequently seats began to be reserved for landlords, zamindars, commerce and industry, etc.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
When India became free a nation the country decided to dispense with all these reservations but to have reservation of seats for only scheduled castes and scheduled tribe people and that too for a limited period of 15 years.
But the seeds of reservation of seats which were sown at that time have come to us a legacy. Today not only reservation of seats in elected bodies and services for scheduled castes and scheduled tribes has become a permanent affairs, but seats have been reserved in elected bodies at panchyat level for women.
There is reservation of seats for other backward classes as recommended by Mandal Commission, even in educational institutions.
Some religious communities have again started demanding reservation of seats for themselves and this unhealthy trend is increasing day-by-day. It is causing worry for those who are interested in maintaining national unity rather than seeing the country divided on caste and class basis.
Thus, India has got several legacies from the past and many of these are continuing with us even today. It is not easy to completely break with the past but gradually the country is shedding the unwanted.