Category: British Empire

Introduction

The British Empire in India has been described as one of the most remarkable stories of the 19^th century. At the onset of the 20^th century, the British Empire was rapidly extended to the Far East embracing Burma, Singapore, Thailand, Malaysia, and up to China. Several authors have opined about the rise and fall of the empire in Asia plus the motives and tactics used to conquer, with some portraying a pro-British perspective while others are anti-British.

British Rule in India

Although the pre-eminence of the British Empire in the 19^th and 20^th centuries has been well document, Ashman (1997) argues that their conquest to the East, particularly India was merely for economic exploitation. Ashman reveals how the British devastated Indian culture and wealth by fanning sectarian rivalries between the Hindu, Muslim and Sikhs.

The company’s was at its peak when it conquered the Bengal Empire in India and hence managed to control the trade to Asia. Ashman views echoes those earlier expressed by Hyndman (1907) who decried the ruinous nature of the British colonial rule in India that was contrary to the then often stated objective of civilising the native backward inhabitants (Schmidt, 2004).

Travers (2007) has however outlined a more neutral position, depicting how the British through the East India Company attempted to legitimise their conquest and plunders in India via ‘an empire of constitutional restoration’ (p. 207)

The British through intellectual discourse argued that they wanted to revive the ancient Mughal constitution that had a more centralised government as opposed to the recently toppled Bengal regional enclave chieftains that were leading to incessant regional and sectarian warfare. Travers thus deplores this hypocrisy asserting that ‘the contested history of the ancient Mughal constitution cannot be used to support a theory of continuity at the level of political discourse’ (p. 250).

The British rule in India as practised by the East India Company is more explicitly recorded by Ogborn (2008) who conversely from normal narrations of the expansive empire traces the correspondence between the Company officials in India and other colonies to their London offices.

Ogborn offers a fresh perspective of how the communication lines were maintained as well as the real proceedings behind the scenes in the corridors of power with topography and script being of great import in sustaining the British Empire. He exposes the diversity, frailty, and elasticity of writings on manuscript revealing how colonial authority was both manifested and defied through the multifarious circuitry of printed prose.

According to Ferguson (2002), the British rule in India as in most of its other colonies in Asia and Africa were more about wealth acquisition and grandeur of power over their European rivals. India and the Far East thus offered them vast opportunities to engage in legitimate trade as they sought cheap raw materials from the new frontiers.

The author thus demonstrates a less romantic view of the British rule in India and the colonies as most conventional authors illustrated a more paternalistic prose that sought to depict the Europeans as bringing civilisation to decadent territories.

Calls for Self-rule

Cody (1999) traces the emergence of British imperialism to the East to its mercantile trade decline in the late 19^th century when the abolition of slavery and the labialisation of trade that greatly diminished its wealth. There were pretensions at legitimising the colonisation of these territories. Cody however argues that despite the British government terming them as economic burdens, they were more about ventures for wealth.

Cody outlines how the fiscal weight of the two world wars and the growing clamour for self rule led to disenchantment with the colonies. Cody however argues that though the British incursion in Asia was unable to culturally subdue traditional customs and religious. Nonetheless, the English language was spread despite the failures in spreading Christianity and other Western traits.

Marshall (2001) nevertheless continued on the themes popular with conventional historians portraying a benign colonial rule aimed at uplifting the local inhabitants. Marshall attempts to illustrate how the British were not merely plundering the foreign lands but also reinvesting there but he only gives examples of those regions controlled by the Europeans.

He however admits that the British rule was violent and that they ‘retained a disproportionately large share of the trade and investment in its own colonies’ (p. 110). Although subtle, Marshall nevertheless retains the same paternalistic attitude arguing that everywhere the British ruled, there landmark majestic colonial structures.

Marshall insists that prior to 20^th century democratic liberalisation, no government could be termed as ‘accountable to the wishes of those they ruled’ (p. 370) though he neglects to mention the American and French revolutions that ushered modern era democracies.

British Ventures in the Far East

According to Ogborn (2008) the entry of the British in India and the Far East marked a new direction as the piracy era against Spanish ships in the Atlantic was abandoned as noted by Ferguson (2002). As these authors have established, colonial ventures were then initiated proving more lucrative.

Supporting this Ashman (1997) notes that the abolition of slavery in the early 19^th century also made India vital by providing alternative cheap labour for the British. The craving for tea and chinaware from China and for spices and indigo from India inspired the British and other Europeans to venture there.

Singapore and Malaysia

Ferguson (2002) also describes how the British established one of the largest trading ports in Asia in Singapore while the flourishing Malayan rubber and tin business ensured booming trade. Ceylon, Burma, Thailand along with other smaller islands was also added to the British Empire by the East India Company though these territories were self-governing.

China and Japan

A review of a letter Wang (2010) to the British monarch Queen Elizabeth 1 sent by Commissioner Lin Zexu after directions from China’s Emperor Daoguang reveals the extent of the rebellion against the British. Wang (2010) illustrates why Britain fought the Opium Wars (1834 and 1860) against the Qing Dynasty with tacit support of Japan over the illegal drug trade and addiction which was abhorred by the Chinese. The profit motive is again characteristic of the colonisers who destroyed local cultures and economies to enrich themselves.

Conclusion

The British Empire was thus at its pinnacle during the Victorian era with India the ultimate prize. Majority of the authors reviewed concur that private motives and grandiose colonial ambitions were the major motivating factors in the expansion.

However Britain was enable to sustain its grip on India and other Far East colonies in the post-WWII due to the cost of the war and violent agitation for self-rule within the territories. Motivated by need to exploit the regions and grandiose colonial aspirations, Britain was at its peak the most powerful nation in the world.

List of References

Ashman, S. (1997). India: Imperialism, Partition and Resistance. International Socialism Journal, Issue 77.

Cody, D. (1999). The British Empire. Web.

Marshall, Peter J. (2001). Cambridge Illustrated History of the British Empire. Race and Class, 38, 4: 89-101.

Ogborn, M. (2008). Indian Ink. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Travers, R. (2007). Ideology and Empire in Eighteenth-Century India: the British in Bengal. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Schmidt, T. (2004). Hyndman: Ruin of India by British Rule, In Histoire de la IIe Internationale, vol. 16. Web.

Travers, R. (2007). Ideology and Empire in Eighteenth-Century India: the British in Bengal. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Wang, E. (2010). Document Analysis:”Moral Advice to Queen Victoria”. In L. Zexu, Lin Zexu’s Letter to Queen Victoria. Salem Press. Web.

Even before the American revolutionary war, which occurred from 1756-1763, Britain had already begun maintaining its global openness. Great Britain began reducing its trade barriers during the 1820s. Its international supremacy rose during this time.

Even though, Britain lost most of its colonies during the American Revolution and the Napoleonic wars, its economic policies rose above the United States as well as other European powers in the international affairs (O’Brien & Clesse 2002, p.352). In fact, the economic liberalization policies made it possible for Britain to maintain supremacy in the international affairs (Lance & Huttenback, 1986).

Hegemony can be described as the liberalization of international economic and financial systems. Conventionally, the term was used to describe the imperial euphemism. It was used to describe the role of a leader of the economic unions or an alliance primarily formed for economic reasons (O’Brien & Clesse 2002, p.321).

The major difference between hegemony and empire is that empires have absolute authority over the subjects. They control economic, political, and social well being of the subjects. In contrast, hegemonic powers do not go beyond borders. They majorly concentrate on the provision of international public goods (O’Brien & Clesse 2002, 321).

The major question is how Britain managed to maintain its hegemonic powers even after the cessation of most of its colonies. That is, after the American Revolution and the Napoleonic wars. Britain lost these wars simply because of the economic constraints experienced in both debt and resources. However, the empire had good infrastructural facilities. The loyalty in most colonies were reasonably sound and stable (Bobbitt, 2003). During the American Revolution, a majority of the colonies maintained their loyalty to Great Britain.

In addition, most colonies that were annexed appeared to be in the political and economic disarray. In fact, these colonies were not unified. The colonies’ governments were largely economic and political impotent to have total control over the world in terms of economic and political affairs (Bobbitt, 2003).

The result was that Britain maintained their economic supremacy and political influence through alliances with its former colonies. America later came to have control over the international affairs. However, their relationship with Britain still suggested the role Britain played in the international affairs (Lance & Huttenback, 1986).

The way Britain maintained its control over the international affairs was based on the intellectual change in commercial policies that took place immediately after the Napoleonic wars (Paul, 1989). In other words, Britain changed its economic policy from the mercantilist foreign economic policy to the revolutionary laissez-faire economic liberalism initiated by Adam Smith.

This new trade policy played a crucial role in shaping the Britain hegemonic powers. This was after the loss of the American colonies and most of the European colonies during the Napoleonic wars. According to various scholars, Britain did not start pursuing its economic openness until the eighteen twenties (Lance & Huttenback, 1986).

However, this pursuit contributed largely to its current achievement in the control of the international affairs. In fact, Great Britain started to liberalize its economic policies during the seventeen eighties. This was after its powers were under constant threat. Britain was operating in a hostile and multi-polar system.

It was the time when Britain gave up its control over most European and American colonies. However, it was left with minimal control over the most powerful colonies. The Britain thus sought for economic openness and cordial political relations. These were meant to foster its international control (Lance & Huttenback, 1986). Besides, Britain took advantage of the political and economic instability in most of the relinquished colonies to have control over most of its affairs.

The Britain’s economic policies shifted towards free trade. It controlled the structure of interests, key institutions as well as powers both at the domestic and international levels (Fareed, 2007). However, the interest in the control of most institutions undermined the country’s commercial strategies during this period. Nevertheless, Britain had many economic strategies to choose from as it continued to pursue power.

Britain hegemonic shift during the American Revolution depended on the influence of its enterprising intellectual such as Adam Smith. According to literature, Adam Smith predicted that mercantilism brought about conflicts (Fareed, 2007). During this time, Shelburne, a leading member of British parliament, salvaged the opposition support. The intention was to control the government, grant independence to American colonies, and reform the British economic policy (Paul, 1989).

At first, Shelburne embraced the mercantile-economic system. The belief was that the system was the best to maintain the British Empire. He emphatically argued that the commercial regulations were the solutions to the American Revolution. This was contrary to the belief of most intellectuals such as Adam Smith. Smith believed that mercantile was the cause of constant conflicts that the empire was experiencing (Paul, 1989).

Nevertheless, his constant engagement with the enterprising intellectuals made him change his mind. Moreover, the public was in full support of the free trade policies. For instance, the Ireland uprising appeared to be in full support of the free trade. This made Shelburne change his assumption. When he later became the prime minister, he planned the post war resolution to exemplify Smith’s predictions (O’Brien & Clesse 2002, p.359).

Shelburne provided the American independence, embraced peace for Europe, and advocated for trade liberalization. Though his tenure was short, the initiatives he put in place provided a foundation for the liberalized economic reforms that ensured Britain’s perpetual control over the world affairs.

The process in which Britain kept its hegemony over the years did not explain the importance of the colonies as well as the wars that Britain fought during these periods. The American colonies were both beneficial and a burden to the British government (O’Brien & Clesse 2002, p.354).

However, the colonies were more of a burden to Britain than the benefit they brought with them. In the first instance, the colonies were expensive to maintain even though the British government would economically benefit in terms of resources and trade. In addition, the taxes that Britain was getting from these colonies were enormous.

Nevertheless, the taxes could not support the colonies both administratively and militarily. As a result, Britain ran into debts as well as the economic downturn (Fareed 2007, p.162). This was coupled with the economic policy of control that did not allow free enterprising and trade.

The fear that was expressed by the American Revolution supporters confirmed the suspicion that most of the American radical leaders had on the British government. Besides, most of the Americans were used to the substantial level of freedom and self-government (Lance & Huttenback, 1986). The French experience instilled some fear in most revolutionary leaders.

They decided to rail against the attempts by the British governments to impose taxes and pay the imperial defense costs. The costs were in the form of assorted taxes and duties. The revolutionary leaders also rejected the attempts by the colonial government. This government wanted to impose mercantilist economic regulations. It also wanted to put the colonial legislators second after that of London.

The American resistance led to the revolution and the fall of the British control in thirteen colonies. Even though Britain managed to maintain control over several states, the Americans did not surrender to the pressure. Immediately after the Saratoga victory, in seventeen seventy-seven, the civil war rocked the empire. Every colony in the empire agitated for economic and political freedom (Bobbitt, 2003).

The Dutch, French, and Spain all went against the empire. The British Empire became diplomatically isolated for the first time in centuries. Dutch, French, and Spain revolutions led to the Napoleonic wars while the American revolt led to the American Revolution. After seven years, the thirteen colonies were granted independence at the treaty of Paris. The European colonies however continued with their civil wars (Bobbitt, 2003).

In the wake of these revolutions, the British government reexamined most of the institutions. The economic reforms were proposed and passed in seventeen eighty-two. These economic reforms had bylaws that reduced the patronage powers of the king and his ministers (Lance & Huttenback, 1986). However, major economic reforms came during the Shelburne time. The revolution was essential for most of the reforms as well as new policies that ensured the continued control of the world affairs.

The Dutch, French, and Spain revolutions later merged into Napoleonic wars. This was when Napoleon Bonaparte took control over the French revolutionary government. During the Napoleonic wars, there was a boom in farm production in Britain and some industries. Although there was a boom in both the farm and industrial production, it led to the rise in inflation. The income rates lagged far behind the market prices (Lance & Huttenback, 1986).

The English central bank was forced to suspend the payment of gold for paper currency, and the income tax was imposed for the first time. After the annexation of Spain and Dutch as well as the defeat of Napoleon, Britain announced that, it had no interest in the control of Europe and America.

The revolution led to the moderation of the government economic policies. The most relevant thing was the abolition of the slave trade and the reduction in barriers to the formation of labor unions. The cessation was not only fought to free the Americans, but was also intended to reduce some of the most dangerous commerce such as the slave trade. Fair trade was encouraged since the trade barriers were reduced (Lance & Huttenback, 1986).

The successive governments embarked on rebuilding the economic torn caused by several wars, inflation, and low productivity. The economic policies, which embraced patronage system, were shelved. Nevertheless, the economic policies that promoted free trade were embraced. These wars played critical roles in shaping the British economic shift that led to its continued control over the universal dealings (O’Brien & Clesse 2002, p.354).

The economic and foreign policies majorly stemmed from the experiences witnessed during the American Revolution and the Napoleonic wars. However, the reforms that shaped the subsequent hegemony of the British governments did not result from the military defeat during the American Revolution.

In conclusion, the British hegemony occurred because of the influence of enterprising intellectuals, the economic conditions in Britain, as well as the situation in other colonies. The changes that took place immediately after the revolution and the Napoleonic wars prompted the British governments to change its policies. While the empire gave up control over some of its colonies, it had to find a way of continuous control over these states.

References

Bobbitt, P 2003, The shield of Achilles: war, peace, and course of history, Penguin Adult, New York.

Fareed, Z 2007, The Future of freedom: illiberal democracy at home and abroad, W. W. Norton, New York.

Lance, DE & Huttenback, RA 1986, Mammon and the pursuit of empire: the political economy of British imperialism, 1860 – 1912, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

O’Brien, PK & Clesse, A 2002, Two hegemonies: Britain 1846 – 1914 and the United States 1941 – 2001, Ashgate, Aldershot, Burlington.

Paul, K 1989, The rise and fall of the great powers: economic change and military conflict from 1500 to 2000, Vintage Books, New York, NY.

Introduction

The article ‘“Truth”, Perception, and Politics: The British Construction of an Image of Tibet by Alex McKay focuses on the presence of the British Empire on Tibet and the perception of the latter. This paper aims at providing a critical analysis of the above article.

Summary

Since 1720, Tibet was considered a vassal possession of the Celestial Empire (McKay 68). However, its political and economic ties with China were relatively weak. The actual ruler of Tibet was the spiritual leader of the Buddhists Dalai Lama. The British government decided to send troops to protect British India from Russian infiltration. The diplomatic leadership of the expedition was entrusted to Colonel Younghusband, and the command of the troops – to General McDonald. The early images associated with Tibet referred to something mystical and unexplored as both sides tried to limit the invasion into Tibet. Furthermore, the author presents “truth” perception by claiming that a “civilizing mission” helped Britain to understand the local population. Namely, they observed a unique and rather developed culture with a strong spirituality.

The author of the identified article also mentions a political factor that largely affected the image of Tibet. During its political independence, Tibet had to withdraw from the state of isolation in foreign policy, which necessitated the development of priorities in the latter and, in fact, its new perception. In turn, China, Great Britain, the Russian Empire, and a number of other countries had their own interests in an already independent Tibet. Only England managed to establish special informal relations with Tibet, the consequences of which continued to affect even after China seized the Tibetan territory. For example, this was expressed in providing thousands of Tibetan refugees with political asylum in British India and creating conditions for the preservation of their traditional culture.

Transition

The core image of Tibet is a sovereign state characterized as friendly and admirable for British Empire. Censorship is another feature the author mentions in his document as it embraced many spheres of life. The mystical perception of Tibet remained to some extent even after the establishment of proper relationships between two identified states.

Analysis

The given article is organized properly according to the standard points, including introduction, body, and conclusion. A reader may easily track the author’s ideas and conclusions evolving in the work. However, the article lacks an abstract that seems to be important to allow readers review the article’s main issues. The author provides significant evidence to support his statements. For example, the scholar notes some historical events, dates, and persons to present the changing perception of Tibet by British. However, it should be stressed that there are no references to credible sources. The reference list is also absent, and a reader has no opportunity to go further and access the sources used by the author. Even though evidence seems to be sufficient, its reliability cannot be verified. There is no sample since the article is not an empirical study. One may argue that it is relevant and representative enough to understand the core theme. More to the point, the article outlines not only British ties with Tibet but also its connections with Russia, China, and other countries.

Transition

The primary purpose of this article is to show how the perception of Tibet changed over time beginning with the British invasion and ending with support of Tibetans while they needed help.

Response

Considering the above primary purpose of the article, it is possible to state that it fully achieved the goal posed by the author since the presentation of a Tibetan image is complete. The purpose is actually worthwhile as it is important to learn about other cultures, especially about those that were significantly affected by the other one as in case of Great Britain and Tibet. The evidence collected and mentioned by the author is particularly strong. He lists all the key events, so that readers observe a full picture. The mentioned topic may be explored further to clarify the relationships between the local population and British or identify any biases, for example.

All the sections are properly explained, and it is quite easy to understand them. At the same time, every area of the article contains enough information to make certain conclusions. The organization of the article is the main aspect that helps to understand the author’s claims and ideas. If it was not so clear, then a reader might be confused. The language of the article also contributes to the article’s integrity and comprehensiveness. The author uses the words that are not too simple or not too complicated, thus making the work readable for both scholars and average readers interested in the topic.

Conclusion

To conclude, it should be emphasized that this article is rather interesting to read due to proper organization, language, and a good flow of ideas. The assumptions made by the author are relevant and representative. Even though the sources used in the article are not clearly identified, the work looks credible and contributes to the existing evidence regarding Tibet’s images and perceptions.

Work Cited

McKay, Alex. ‘“Truth”, Perception, and Politics: The British Construction of an Image of Tibet.” Imagining Tibet: Perceptions, Projections, and Fantasies, edited by Thierry Dodin, and Räther Heinz, 2001, 67–90.