After the Great Revolt of 1857, Britain decided direct rule was safer than rule through a company. This section covers what changed in government, and how Indians began organising politically in response.
The Government of India Act (1858)
The Government of India Act (1858) ended East India Company rule completely. India now became a Crown colony. A new Secretary of State for India in London took charge of policy, advised by a Council of India. In India itself, a Viceroy replaced the old Governor-General as the monarch's direct representative — the first was Lord Canning.
Why this mattered: Rule now came straight from the British government, not a profit-driven company. Britain also promised no more annexation of princely states and greater respect for Indian customs and religions — an attempt to avoid provoking another revolt.
The partition of Bengal (1905)
In 1905, Viceroy Lord Curzon split the huge province of Bengal into two: a Muslim-majority east and a Hindu-majority west. Officially this was for efficient administration. In practice it was widely seen as divide and rule — weakening Bengali nationalism by splitting the Hindu and Muslim communities that had campaigned together against British policies.
Reaction: The partition sparked mass protest: boycotts of British goods (swadeshi, meaning 'of one's own country'), strikes, and a surge in support for the Indian National Congress. Public anger was so strong that the partition was reversed in 1911.
Constitutional groups and growing consciousness
- Indian National Congress (1885) — founded by educated, mostly Hindu, English-speaking Indians (including retired British official A.O. Hume); at first loyal and moderate, asking for more Indian representation in government, not independence
- All India Muslim League (1906) — founded in Dhaka; represented Muslim interests, partly fearing that a Hindu-majority Congress would dominate any future self-government
- Indian Councils Act 1909 (Morley–Minto reforms) — expanded Indian membership of legislative councils and introduced separate electorates for Muslims (they voted only for Muslim candidates)
- Separate electorates — a lasting effect: they hardened the idea that Hindus and Muslims were separate political communities, a division that would matter greatly after 1919
Cause and effect chain: Learn this chain for essays: partition of Bengal (1905) → mass protest and swadeshi → British need to appease moderate opinion → Morley–Minto reforms (1909) → separate Muslim electorate → deepened Hindu–Muslim political division.
Free preview
This is the free notes preview
You're reading the free notes. Aimnova Pro unlocks the full study experience — and you can try it free for 7 days:
- FlashcardsLock in vocabulary and key terms with spaced repetition.
- Practice questionsAnswer exam-style questions and get instant AI marking.
- Mock exams & past-paper vaultSit full mocks and see exactly how examiners award marks.
- Personalised study planA daily plan built around your exam date and weak areas.
This section looks at how the British Raj reshaped Indian society and the economy, and what happened when the First World War arrived.
Economic and social impact of the Raj
- Railways and telegraphs — built extensively, mainly to move troops and export raw materials (cotton, jute) to Britain, not to develop Indian industry
- De-industrialisation — cheap machine-made British cloth flooded Indian markets, ruining many local hand-weavers
- Land revenue systems — heavy, fixed taxes on land pushed many peasants into debt to moneylenders
- Famines — recurring famines (for example in the 1870s and 1890s) killed millions; critics argued British administration exported food even during shortages
- English-medium education — created a new educated Indian middle class, but one that increasingly resented being excluded from senior jobs and real political power
The double-edged sword: British education and railways were meant to bind India to Britain. Instead they gave Indians a shared language (English), a shared network (rail), and shared ideas (liberty, self-rule) to organise a national movement against British rule.
The First World War (1914–1918)
India contributed huge resources to Britain's war effort: over a million Indian soldiers served, and India paid heavily towards war costs through taxes and loans.
Wartime promises
Indian leaders supported the war expecting rewards — Congress hoped loyalty would be repaid with more self-government afterwards.
Economic strain
Wartime taxes, inflation and shortages of goods caused real hardship for ordinary Indians, feeding resentment.
Rising expectations
Nearly a million returning soldiers had seen the wider world and often no longer accepted the idea that Indians were 'unfit' to govern themselves.
War effort → high cost → high expectations → disappointment when reforms fell short.
Set-up for later units: This wartime disappointment is the direct bridge into the Amritsar Massacre (1919) and the mass movements led by Gandhi — covered in a later unit. For this micro, focus only on developments up to and including the outbreak of the First World War and its immediate impact.
Know your predicted grade
Take timed mock exams and get detailed feedback on every answer. See exactly where you're losing marks.
Britain's worries about India were not only internal. Two neighbouring regions — Afghanistan and Burma — show how British expansion and Russian rivalry shaped the wider region.
Afghanistan and the Great Game
Britain feared that Russia might expand south through Central Asia towards Afghanistan and then India. This long rivalry for influence in Central Asia became known as "The Great Game". Afghanistan's mountainous North-West Frontier became the strategic buffer zone Britain wanted to control or at least keep neutral.
| War | Rough dates | Outcome |
|---|---|---|
| First Anglo-Afghan War | 1839–1842 | Disaster for Britain — nearly the entire retreating British force was destroyed; showed the strength of Afghan resistance |
| Second Anglo-Afghan War | 1878–1880 | Britain gained control of Afghan foreign policy, but not full occupation; Amir Abdur Rahman Khan ruled internal affairs |
| Third Anglo-Afghan War | 1919 | Short war; Afghanistan won full control of its own foreign policy — full independence recognised |
The Afghan monarchy's strategy: Amir Abdur Rahman Khan (ruled 1880–1901) accepted British control of foreign affairs in exchange for British subsidies and non-interference in Afghan internal government. This let Afghanistan keep a strong, independent internal state while avoiding direct British occupation — very different from India's experience.
Burma: from independent kingdom to British colony
- King Mindon (ruled 1853–1878) — tried cautious modernisation and diplomacy to keep Burma independent, moving the capital to Mandalay and attempting reforms
- King Thibaw (ruled 1878–1885) — Burma's last king; weaker and more isolated position; his government's trade dealings with France alarmed Britain, who feared French influence next to British Burma
- Reasons for loss of independence — British commercial interest in Burmese teak and resources, fear of French rivalry, and repeated frontier disputes gave Britain justification for full annexation
| War | Rough dates | Result |
|---|---|---|
| First Anglo-Burmese War | 1824–1826 | Burma lost Assam, Manipur and coastal provinces (Arakan, Tenasserim) |
| Second Anglo-Burmese War | 1852 | Britain annexed Lower Burma (including Rangoon) |
| Third Anglo-Burmese War | 1885 | Britain deposed King Thibaw and annexed the remaining Kingdom of Upper Burma — Burma lost all independence |
Effects of colonial rule in Burma: Burma was governed as a province of British India, not as its own colony — Burmese elites lost status while migrant Indian workers and traders were brought in, causing lasting resentment. British reliance on rice exports reshaped the economy around cash crops. Buddhist monks (pongyi) became early leaders of resistance and rising nationalism, since the monarchy — traditionally the protector of Buddhism — had been destroyed.