While there were a numerous way in which the English East India company were able to maintain control over their massive Indian territory , I will cover some important ways in which they exerted control :
#Part 1
#Control over the rulers
One of the important pillars of power of company support were a loyal class of local rulers . These rulers were helpful because
They helped maintain an illusion of indigenous rule when in reality they were nothing more than company stooges .
They helped in suppression of local rebellions and other minor disputes that were not big enough or important enough to warrant the use of the company army
By getting support and loyalty of these indigenous rulers , They hoped to obtain a sense of legitimacy as they often touted themselves as the protector of mughal empire and in later years as successors of the mughal state
But how did the company develop this class of royal rulers?
The Company exerted control over the rules and various kingdoms via mainly the
Let us understand each of the above in a brief manner
Subsidiary alliance system
Under the subsidiary alliance system , The ruler agreed to enter an alliance with the company . The terms of these alliance were as follows:
An Indian ruler entering into a subsidiary alliance with the British would accept British forces within his territory and to pay for their maintenance.
- The ruler would accept a British official (resident) in his state.
- The ruler who entered into a subsidiary alliance would not join any alliance with any other power or declare war against any power without the permission of the British.
- The ruler would dismiss any Europeans other than the British and avoid employing new ones.
- The ruler would let the British rule on any conflict any other state.
- The ruler would acknowledge the East India Company as the paramount power in India.
- The ruler would have his state be protected by the Company from external dangers and internal disorders.
- If the rulers failed to make the payments that were required by the alliance, part of their territory would be taken away as a penalty.
- Indian rulers have to maintain British troops in his state.
As you can see after reading the above terms , Any kingdom which entered / or was forced to enter into a subsidiary alliance was reduced to nothing but a kingdom with a rubber stamp ruler who were official puppets of the company on almost all matters of importance
Examples of kingdoms which entered the subsidiary alliance system : Awadh , Many maratha princely kingdoms ,Tanjore , Indore etc
Protection alliance or protective custody
Many Indian rulers or royal families who were afraid of being attacked by their rivals or by members of their own house often entered British protective custody . These forms of agreements generally involved the Company defeating/killing/driving off the enemies of the person seeking protection . In return for these , The ruler would become predisposed to the company and do what the company advised them in case they needed the company protection in the future again
Picking sides in succession disputes to install a puppet
The company often took advantage of succession disputes to further their own advantage . They would select one of the people involved in the disputes and offer their support , resources and help to get the throne . In return , the ruler would have to promise to be favor and have good relations with the Company when he becomes the ruler
Such actions were also often done when they felt that a ruler soon to come to power in a throne would be bad for the prospects of the company
In most of the cases , Getting the official support of company on your side generally meant that the game was over for the opposing side more or less
Thus , by helping these rulers ascend the throne , they got a loyal group of rulers who they could rely on in times of difficulty
Doctrine of lapse and adoption
Under an ancient Hindu custom, to avoid a disputed succession to the throne, a ruler with no born-to heir could adopt a male of any age from another branch of the ruling family and appoint him heir apparent. This parallels similar customs in ancient Rome and during the Chinese Qing Dynasty.
When the British Empire came to India in 1757, among the land-grabbing stratagems devised was the Doctrine of Lapse, which abrogated the ancient custom. Under this doctrine the British arrogated to themselves the right to veto the succession of an adopted heir, and instead, to annex the territory concerned, although the adopted successor and his heirs were usually allowed to keep their titles and a substantial annual allowance.
Thus , this one more method to install a puppet regime in many kingdoms . Many big Indian princely thus fell to this policy
# Part 2 to follow soon
The army of the East India Company were one of the most feared and powerful in the subcontinent uptil its dissolution in 1857
Company army had massive superiority over indigenous kingdoms in terms of artillery , firepower and firearms ,military discipline and military tactitcs
To help the company further , they had a exceptional and experienced class of military commanders and officers who had experience fighting in many terrains and countries in different parts of the world . In many wars , the company won not to due to superior quality of equipment , but rather due to the experienced officers and commanders leading the charge during the war .
The trademark red coat and bucket coat that the company is now famous for stuck fear in many Indian kingdoms. In order to increase troop morale , many Indian kingdoms introduced a similar looking uniform for their own army
The payment system of the company was extremely punctual. The company placed a great emphasis on ensuring that due salary payments were done to all troops . This ensured that the Company army became a lucrative job for many Indians . The best and smartest of various kingdoms often tried their hands to get a job in the company army
Any disturbance anywhere in the country that had the potential to weaken company hold over power invited a visit from the Company army . Many regiments in the company evoked special fear such as the Bengal regiment which were the backbone of company power in the country
Meanwhile you can read my answer regarding opinion of various sections of the Indian society towards East India company to understand the flames of discontentment that were rising in the Indian society
Let me quote you a section which will directly answer this part of question
Among the myths which became current in the wake of the rebellion of 1857-8 was the idea that it was a unique event, something that had to be explained in terms of the peculiar folly of the revenue policy of the
With this in mind, several broad types of dissidence can be isolated from the great range of revolts between 1800 and i860. Most notable were the periodic revolts of zamindars and other superior landholders fighting off demands for higher revenue or invasions of their status as 'little kings' in the countryside. Then there were conflicts between landlords and groups of tenants or under-tenants objecting to the transformation of customary dues into landlord rights or to some violation of the obligations between agrarian lord and dependant. Next there was a range of conflicts arising from tension between wandering or tribal people and settled peasant farmers which usually centred on the control of forests, grazing grounds or other communally exploited resources. Finally, there were frequent revolts in cities and towns. These had many causes: some were riots over market control and taxation. Some involved bloodshed between religious or caste groups or the protests of embattled artisan communities. All these types of conflict were widespread but they surfaced in exaggerated form in the course of the Mutiny and Rebellion of 1857.
Source for the above quoted text :Indian society and makings of british empire
[1/2]
I would like to add a few points here, because u/HarshKarve's posts seems to me very strongly (if not to say solely) informed by a British perspective, leading to a rather positive overall assessment of the East India Company. Although they quote a short paragraph on resistance at the end, it basically seems in the post as if the British were in control due to their superior strategies and military. This is misleading, because in fact indigenous resistance to colonial rule was continuos from the beginning in the Raj in the late 18th c. roughly until the rebellion of 1857, which led to the British Crown taking over. Also and crucially it reinforces colonial stereotypes that don't ascribe agency to non-Europeans (here from South Asia), effectively writing them out of history. So it's important to keep in mind that British rule was far from secure even as late as 1857, where in the first months it was not clear at all that the British could regain control.
Having said that, I'll especially focus on two points below: 1) native resistance, and 2) (more briefly) changes under British rule.
The EIC increasingly formed a parallel state in India, with private armies and great administrative control. It had managed over decades to take over princely states and form an economic basis. To do so it had increasingly built on indigenous sources and networks of information gathering since the 1760s (cf Bayly, Empire and Information). However, all this came at a cost (C.A. Bayly, Indian Society making British Empire, 106):
The [EIC] rose to power because it had provided a secure financial base for its powerful mercenary army. The land revenues of Bengal, combined with the capital - Indian as much as European - generated in the coastal trading economy, allowed the Company's Indian operations to sustain the massive debts incurred in its fight to finish with the Indian kingdoms. However, political dominion did not solve the Company's financial problems. The ominous presence and constant pressure of this part-oriental, part-European state continued to tempt petty rulers within and outside its domains into revolt. Though aspects of the social and political conflict which had drawn the Company into expansion were suppressed under its ruler, so too was much of the economic dynamism which had given rise to that conflict. India's huge agricultural economy was not performing well enough to underwrite the costs of European dominion. The [EIC]'s rule widely came to be seen as a dismal failure long before the Great Rebellion of 1857 blew up its foundations.
We should note that this perception of the Company's failure was not just from Indian perspectives, but that there were important discussions in British parliament in the 19th c. over restricting the company's influence. One major criticism there was the perceived corruption of the EIC's leading administrators. Another point to add here is that the perceived "low performance" of the native economy is connected also to British tactics of importing British textiles to India which would over the long-term weaken this important branch of South Asian economies (among other influences). Adding to this was that the "needs of its financial and military machine had tended to snuff out that buoyant entrepreneurship of revenue farmers, merchants and soldiers which had kept the indigenous system functioning" (ibid). As mentioned such developments taken together led to resistance in various forms and for various reasons.
.
Indigenous resistance to colonial rule
I'll begin by quoting an earlier reply of mine on the time preceding the rebellion of 1857:
The rebellion took place 100 years after the beginning of the rule of the Easty India Company (EIC) in South Asia, and has to be understood as a continuation of a long tradition of local resistance to colonial rule (that continued up to independence). In this light, the rebellion was particular in its scope, but not in its goals and demands. There were many different kinds of and motivations for resistance: Among others religious insurrections, banditry, acts of revenge – but also peaceful opposition. Most of those insurrections were connected in some way to the very common economic exploitation and political marginalisation through the EIC, and thus to popular discontent.
It's also interesting to note that such discontent ran through all social classes. As a common ideology we can identify the central role of the community principle to the rural populace (including the caste system), and that of traditional land rights. Most (if not all) of these motivations for and forms of resistance played major roles during 1857. On the other hand, the lack of a coordinated, unified organisation meant that the British could count on parts of the local population, and was a major influence in the rebellion's failure.
Let's look a bit closer at those earlier revolts: At almost any moment during colonial times a rebellion or revolt took place somewhere in SOuth Asia. There are reports of hundreds of revolts already in the 17th century, and according to Kathleen Gough there were at least 77 agrarian revotls from the 18th c., drawing tens to hundreds of thousands of peasants. While they were officially called 'localized', they actually took place on larger territories than those of the well-known European agrarian revolts when considerian South Asia's huge size. Certain areas had more frequent revolts taking place, esp. Bengal, but also tribal areas of modern-day Andhra Pradesh (Hyderabad) und Kerala (in the South West).
As a larger ideology behind such resistance we can see the central role of the community principle for the rural populace, especially the spiritual foundation of the caste system and traditional land rights: "Community as 'the characterisitc unifying feature of peasant consciousness" (Chatterjee). This served to seperate friends from traditional foes during revolts - between, but also within religious groups. Another feature of the community was the major role of politico-social justice. Justice could take the form of rights to complaint, peaceful forms of protest such as migration. An important result of this was that even people of the lower classes could reclaim their rights before local authorities -- which was not possible anymore in this way under the British.So many revolts can be connected to a pre-colonial sense of justice not compatible with British conceptions, which because of this were often not succesful. Then again, revolts often led to adaptions of the colonial system, e.g. throiugh agreements with local leaders and groups from which they could profit.
I'll now look in a bit more detail at forms of resistant other than those agrarian revolts, and then turn to consequences of the revotl of 1857 (1857 itself falls sort of outside of the scope of this):
Revolts of land owners/ zamindars: These went against larger tributes and the lowering of their status. E.g. when the British tried to move one of their candidates onto the throne of a realm (as mentioned in the above post), contrary to the political alliances of a given region. Especially frequent was resistance in regions that had never been under Mughal control, but were now supposed to be controlled by the EIC (or its rulers). Examples include Awadh and Bundelkhand. Privileges were accorded by the British to local leaders in order to thwart further rebellions.
Resistance of village leaders: Here often the sole possibility was moving away or deserting, but also revolts took place (Dekkan 1850s/'60s, Konkan 1857-'59). In addition there were conflicts within rural societies, between landowners and tenants, which only increased with the stronger influence of cash cropping. Tenants often reisted the transformaton of their land rights; and conlficts between non-sedentary tribes and sedentary farmers were also quite frequent.
Religious unrest: Oftentimes agrarian conflicts took on religious character through the influence of reformist Islam. This was the case with the Faraizi movement in Eastern Bengal (1820s to '50s), which revolted in favor of weavers and their taxation, and attacked Hindu money-lenders as well as European indio-estates. Moreoever there was an increase in revolutionary messianism taking place, esp. in Muslim (but also in Hindu) communities reeling from theri increasing social deracination. These were collective movements looking towards a sacred realm on earth, and for an imminent huge change through supernatural means. Apocalyptical preachers (like Tipu Sahib in East Bengal) prophetised the end of British rule and mobilized mountain tribes in this way.
Urban revolts: Were connected to economic and religous difficulties. Once more the decrease of urban weavers and artisans led to revolts of these groups. In their own organisations muslim faith would often strengthen communal ties, and strikes against local officials and traders happened often. The most frequent resistance in cities came from the elites -- they were against colonial taxations and taxation of houses. The replacement of traditional guardians of the law through colonial officials further led to agitation.
.