WHY DID HINDUS SUPPORT COLONIAL RULE?
Arun Shourie & the Persecution of Christians
To,
Mr. Arun Shourie,
Author, “Missionaries in India” & “Harvesting Our Souls.”
Respected Mr. Shourie,
You are fierce in your critique of your opponents, yet you remain a gentleman. I don’t think you hate the people you oppose. Yet, just as Savarkar’s hatred for Gandhi inspired his followers to assassinate the Mahatma, the hatred you have spread against missionaries resulted in burning alive Australian missionary, Graham Staines and his two sons.
You spread the horrible idea that “converting” outcast lepers into human beings was an anti-national activity. The spirituality of hate that you fueled continues to poison India from Manipur to other Hindutva-ruled states. It drives Hindus to beat up pious women who pray for the sick. It forces the police and the courts to imprison pastors for asking people to repent for their sins. It has weaponized the judicial system to become the enemy of freedoms it is meant to uphold.
One of your main attacks on missionaries was that some of them supported colonial rule. You ignored the fact that it was your alma mater’s chaplain, C. F. Andrews, a British missionary, who went to South Africa in 1913 to persuade Mahatma Gandhi to return to India. Right up to the end of his life, Andrews supported Gandhi’s struggle for India’s independence.
My response to your criticism that missionaries supported colonial rule is a counterquestion:
Why Did A Majority of Hindus Support Colonial Rule?
Thirty-eight lakh (3.8 million) Indian soldiers fought on the frontlines to defend the British Raj. In WWI (1914-1919), around 70,000 of them laid down their lives; 87,000 more in WW2 (1939-45).
When the first war began, Indian Maharajas (mostly Hindus) volunteered over 22,000 of their own soldiers to defend the British Empire that had colonized them. The Rajas gave their money, camels, horses and weapons to defend the British Empire.
During the first war, thirty-one Indian princes pooled their resources to finance a hospital ship, Loyalty. They spent half-a-million (5 lakhs) British pounds for the ship to make forty voyages and carry about 15,500 sick and wounded soldiers who were fighting to defend Britain.
Later in this letter I will discuss why a majority of Hindu soldiers, intelligentsia, merchants and Social Reformers supported the British Raj. Before that, let me remind you that the Maharajas did not defend the British Empire only from external attacks. In 1857, Hindu, Sikh and many Muslim rulers defended the Colonial rule from fellow Indians.
Hindu Soldiers Supported Their Colonial Rulers
The Bengal unit of the British-Indian army had good reasons to begin the revolt against the Raj. So did Hindu soldiers in the Madras and Bombay units have good reasons to remain loyal to the British. At least 25% of the Bengal unit also preferred the British Raj to the Rebels.
The 1857 revolt was a great example of Hindu-Muslim unity. Almost 70% of the soldiers who won Delhi were Hindus. They compelled a Muslim to become the ruler of the whole of India.
Colonial rulers won that war, in spite of exemplary Hindu-Muslim unity, because the majority of the Hindu Maharajas, most of the Sikh rulers and many Muslim nawabs supplied their own troops, weapons, transport, logistical assistance and strategic information to the British.
Hindu Maharajas Defended the British Empire
Maharaja Jayajirao Scindia of Gwalior, for example, opposed Rani Laxmibai of Jhansi and Tatya Tope of Kanpur. The British Raj won that great war because Maharaja Narinder Singh of Patiala, Raja Sarup Singh of Jind, Maharaja Bharpur Singh of Nabha, Raja Randhir Singh of Kapurthala, Maharaja Sardar Singh of Bikaner, Tukoji Rao Holkar II of Indore, Raja Balwant Singh of Ratlam were among the prominent Hindu rulers who actively supported Colonialism.
Not just in Rajputana, but most Hindu rulers of Gujarat also supported Colonial rule: Khanderao Gaekwad, the Maharaja of Baroda State, is best remembered as actively pro-British. However, he was not the only one. Local Princely and Jagirdari Chiefs of Saurashtra & Rewakantha, rulers in smaller states such as Kathiawar, Lunawada, and Mahi Kantha remained loyal to the British Raj. Those who did not defend Colonialism proactively, chose neutrality. They refused to support the rebellion.
Sikh Rulers Supported the British Raj
Hindus rightly blame the Sikh rulers for defending the British Raj in 1857. The choice before them was a revival of the Mughal Empire or continuation of British Rule. They had good historical reasons for preferring the British. Prominent Sikh rulers who fought to defend British Colonialism were:
- Maharaja Narendra Singh of Patiala State, He was the most influential and proactive ally of the British. As soon as he heard of the “Mutiny” he provided financial loans, secured vital supply lines and roads between Delhi and Punjab. He sent thousands of troops to guard European women and children and fight alongside British regiments to recapture Delhi.
- Raja Bharpur Singh, the young ruler of Nabha State, placed his entire military force at the disposal of the British. His troops escorted British ammunition and supply trains, guarded strategic outposts, and participated directly in the military operations around Delhi.
- Raja Sarup Singh of Jind State became the first Indian ruler to take the field in person against the rebels. He led his own army to join British forces, clearing insurgent strongholds along the grand trunk road, and fighting in the front lines during the battle for Delhi.
- Raja Randhir Singh of Kapurthala State was located far away in the Trans-Sutlej area. Yet, he personally led a force of over 2,000 men to Oudh (Awadh) and Bihar, fighting in several major engagements, successfully clearing rebel forces out of key districts in northern India.
Muslim Nawabs Also Preferred the British Empire Over the Mughal
- Nizam Afzal-ud-Daula, the ruler of India’s largest princely state, Hyderabad, actively suppressed anti-British insurrections within his territory. When rebel factions led by figures like Turrebaz Khan attacked the British Residency in Hyderabad, the Nizam’s administration crushed the uprising.
- Nawab Sikandar Begum, the formidable female ruler of Bhopal, staunchly refused to align with the freedom fighters. Rani Lakshmibai of Jhansi wrote multiple letters to her urging her to join the rebellion. She did more than decline. She prevented an uprising in Bhopal, banned anti-British propaganda, protected fleeing British officers, and deployed her forces to safeguard Imperial interests in Central India.
- Nawab Yusef Ali Khan Bahadur of Rampur State ruled in Rohilkhand. It was a region heavy with rebel activity. He stood firm in backing the British. He kept his territory stable, shielded European refugees, and sent his military to help the British recapture surrounding regions from the “mutineers”.
- Another important Muslim defender of the British Empire was the Nawab of Pataudi, right outside of Delhi, in contemporary Gurugram (Haryana).
Not just Muslim rulers, but also prominent Muslim Intellectuals and Elites also defended the Raj. The most famous Muslim public figure was Sir Syed Ahmad Khan, who worked in East India Company’s judicial services. He actively saved European lives during the “mutiny” in Bijnor. Legendary poet Mirza Ghalib also cooperated with the British in Delhi.
So, Why Did Hindu Rulers Support Colonialism?
Rajputana, roughly present Rajasthan, had 20 major Hindu rulers. Not a single ‘Maharana Pratap’ rose up to fight against the British Raj.
It has become fashionable to brand these Hindu supporters of colonial rule as “traitors.” That branding can be justified only if it is understood that the Hindu rajas were guilty of treason against a silly attempt to revive the Mughal Empire. They defended the Raj in their self-interest, exactly as self-interest inspired the rebels. Back then not a single leader had a vision for Independent “India.” Missionaries had to educate another generation before thoughtful Indians began to internalize the Bible’s idea of India as a sovereign nation. Cultivating the virtue of nationalism, putting nation above self and caste interests, was a long-term fruit of Christian education.
No nation called Bharat or anything else had existed in anyone’s memory or history books. The myth that Bharat used to be a nation in the distant past is brand new. Besides 20 major kingdoms, Rajputana had nearly a hundred semi-autonomous “Thikanas” and “Jagirs.” Muslim invaders were able to march up to Delhi and Patna because these Hindu “kingdoms” had been at war against each other for close to a thousand years.
Rajputana’s Hindu rulers supported colonial rule because for the very first time it had brought peace to their region. After 1818, the only wars that Rajput kings fought were in defense of British rule: in 1857 and during the two World Wars.
Weren’t there protests and agitations against colonial rule? Yes, many. Just as independent India has had plenty of Naxalite, Peasant, tribal, trade union and student movements. Eight decades of self-governance still drives farmers and students to commit suicide.
Hindu Elite & Merchants Supported the British Raj
No educated Hindu elite — No ‘Arun Shourie’ of the time — supported the 1857 Revolt. On the contrary, many intellectuals, such as Radhakanta Deb, condemned the rebellion. Deb was a conservative Hindu figure in Bengal. He criticized the Bengali unit of the British army.
The Hindu elite disliked British racism. They criticized the Raj’s economic policies. In spite of that, they remained loyal to the Raj because they believed in the value of Christian education, law, administration, scientific and technological improvements and social reforms. The intelligentsia had very good reasons to think that British justice and institutions would help modernize Indian society, necessary for creating opportunities for progress.
Some foresighted Hindus also feared that the collapse of British authority would produce instability and undesirable political fruit: warring Hindu & Muslim chieftains. Such fears motivated educated Hindus to organize public meetings to pray for British victory.
Wealthy Hindu merchants had strong reasons to fear the Rebellion.
- Kanhaiyya Lal Saligram, a banker in Delhi, risked his wealth, family and life to pass strategic information to the British. Even though, he had to maintain a complicated relationship with the rebel administration.
- Misr Baijnath, a banker from Bareilly, received official British recognition for services to the British during the 1857 rebellion.
- The Gokuldas Parikh banking firm in Mathura also played an important financial role in defeating the rebels.
- Hindu commercial elite had their economic interests. Their business needed the security of their property, access to credit, established trading networks, and predictable systems of taxation, administration and bribe-free justice. In towns that the rebels took over, they began demanding money from the merchants, as well as supplies and taxes to finance the uprising. Some Moneylenders had acquired land through debt or revenue proceedings. They were particular targets of angry peasants. The rebellion threatened their property rights. This appeared more dangerous to them than the continuation of British authority.
This is not to suggest that the 1857 Revolt began Hindu support for the British Raj.
- Public figures such as Maharaja Nabakrishna Deb, for example, had already served the East India Company as an interpreter and intermediary. That had helped him gain wealth and status following the British victory at Plassey in 1757.
- Dwarkanath Tagore, a wealthy Bengali entrepreneur, had partnered with British commercial interests and invested in enterprises operating under Company rule. Collaboration with the expanding colonial rule offered access to wealth, influence, and new commercial opportunities to the business elite.
- The Jagat Seth family financially supported Robert Clive in 1757. It conspired with the East India Company to overthrow Nawab Siraj-ud-Daulah because they viewed British contract enforcement as far more reliable for their banking empire than the taxation of the Nawab.
Hindu Social Reformers Supported and Critiqued the British Rule
Colonial rule appealed to Hindu social reformers, for the same reason it appealed to missionary-reformers. British justice, security and freedom of expression and movement made it possible for reformers such as Raja Ram Mohan Roy, Keshab Chandra Sen, Ishwar Chandra Vidhyasagar, Swami Dayanand Saraswati etc. to critique both the Company as well as their own Hindu community.
Roy worked with missionaries and within British institutions at different points and advocated legal, educational, and social reforms. His first-hand experience of the Raj gave him the courage to criticize aspects of Company’s governance and defend civil liberties. Indian reformers who followed Roy, all the way to Gandhi, appreciated the fact that the British rule made it possible for them to secure social improvements through cooperation while, even as they challenged specific policies or abuses. Colonial administration prevented Hindus from killing Swami Dayanand for critiquing traditional Hinduism.
Colonial Rule Enabled Low-Caste Social Reformers Raise Their Voices
A majority of Hindus were the victims of the Hindu Varna (caste) oppression. Colonial rule made it possible for them to speak and act. That is why Mahatma Jotirao Phule welcomed the British Raj as God sent. This 19th century pioneer of the low-caste social reform movement welcomed the missionary attempt to educate the lowest castes. Colonialism allowed him to challenge Brahmin dominance. It offered a historic opportunity to uplift the downtrodden Shudras and Ati-Shudras.
Some British educators, including missionaries, had continued the Brahminical policy of not educating the lower castes. In spite of that the British rule provided the only available context for the lower castes to educate themselves. This, Phule knew, would help Hinduism’s victims to question oppressive hierarchies.
In his 1873 classic, Gulamgiri, (i.e. Slavery) Phule described the caste oppression as religiously enforced slavery. Missionary’s effort, made possible by Colonial rule, inspired Phule to envision the end of Hindu slavery. The Christian idea of human rights made it possible for him to appeal to British rulers to restrain oppressive Hindu traditions. The Raj gave him the freedom to criticize colonial policies that burdened cultivators and laborers.
Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar, agreed with Phule that the British rule provided an opportunity to emancipate Hinduism’s victims. It offered legal protection to the reformers. Therefore, Ambedkar participated in the Round Table Conferences in London. He served as the Labour Member of the Viceroy’s Executive Council from 1942 to 1946 and used colonial institutions to advance the interests of the oppressed.
Similarly, M.C. Rajah, a prominent leader of the Depressed Classes in the Madras Presidency, worked through colonial legislative institutions to campaign for political representation of the oppressed.
These examples illustrate that Hindus supported colonial rule because both the High-Caste as well as the Low-Caste saw the unique blessings that came with Colonialism.
Indian National Congress & Colonial Rule
The liberty to critique colonial policies became the rationale for the existence and growth of the Indian National Congress. Its leaders such as Dadabhai Naoroji, Gopal Krishna Gokhale, Surendranath Banerjea, Mahadev Govind Ranade, and Pherozeshah Mehta publicly appreciated the Colonial rule for making it possible for the governed to help reform governance.
The Congress flourished because British rule gave legal equality to the rulers and their subjects. It allowed the Congress to ask for greater Indian representation in government, protection of civil rights, and gradual self-government. Congress conventions criticized British economic policies and practices. Yet, for decades the Congress sought reform rather than immediate revolutionary overthrow of the colonial state.
Joseph Baptista, an ‘East Indian Christian’ from Bombay, was a student in Cambridge University. He gave to Balgangadhar Tilak the idea that complete independence needed to be Indians’ birthright. Tilak popularized it as a slogan, but failed to make it Congress’ goal.
In 1927, even Mahatma Gandhi opposed the idea of complete independence when Jawaharlal Nehru brought it up in the Congress. Gandhi wanted limited “Home Rule”, which Maharajas already had. Gandhi wanted India to remain a part of the British Dominion. He was more realistic than today’s pseudo intellectuals.
Those who actually lived under Colonial rule knew that industrialization, not colonialism, was hurting India’s famous handloom industry. The machine-made cloth was better and cheaper. The market should be democratized. People ought to have the freedom to buy better and cheaper clothes. The Congress, along with Mahatma Gandhi, accepted Nehru’s goal of Complete Independence only during the Lahore Session of the Congress in 1929. That is forty-five years after its birth.
The Congress was born in 1885, just after British rule began democratizing not just governance but things as “mundane” as “public” transportation. The Aryans brought the horse to India, but they retained chariots as prestige-symbols. Only the rulers were allowed to use horses. The Shudras were banned from using the horse power even in tongas (horse carts) or for agriculture.
Early Congress leaders appreciated the colonial rule because, in spite of racism, the British rulers followed the missionaries in promoting vernaculars. That began democratizing access to knowledge. Horse driven trams and tongas took off mainly after the 1880s and only in British administered cities. Democratizing transportation was a historic move to liberate the common man.
Why Did Hindutva Leaders Support Colonial Rule?
Congress leaders were not the only ones who shared the missionaries’ belief that British governance can be reformed, made just and conducive to public prosperity. Hindutva leaders such as V.D. Savarkar and B.S. Moonje also saw similar blessings. They went beyond the Congress and encouraged Hindu youth to join the British Indian army. This, Moonje argued, would give Hindu youth military training they needed.
Syama Prasad Mookerjee, President of the Hindu Mahasabha and a founding member of the Bhartiya Jan Sangh, served in Bengal’s coalition government in 1942. He opposed the spread of the Quit India campaign in Bengal. He argued, just as the low-caste leaders did, that the British Raj was better than a possible Congress Raj.
So, why did some missionaries support colonial rule?
In my ten earlier letters, published in “Missionary Conspiracy”, and in my other books such as (i) The Father of Modern India: William Carey; (ii) India; The Grand (Evangelical) Experiment and (iv) The Bible and the Making of Modern India I have explained that Colonialism did not bring or use missionaries. It was the Evangelical movement that reformed England, the East India Company and British governance.
Sir, your understanding of history is upside down. Colonial rule began as a disaster. Missionaries and their patrons transformed Colonial rule into a blessing to India. They needed the rulers to support their effort to make India an educated, healthy, just, free and wise nation.
Would a wealthy Hindu family send their 25 year old daughter to live outside an Indian village, rescue temple prostitutes and widows, nurse lepers and educate the untouchables? Many educated girls may be willing to do so, but their families would fear that Hindu governments are not going to be able to protect their idealistic daughters. Missionary nurses and teachers were able to serve India, because the evangelical movement had reformed the British Raj. You, Sir, had already become a Member of Rajya Sabha when Graham Staines was burnt alive. Ten months later you became a Cabinet Minister in a Hindutva Government. The movement you empowered is not hurting only Muslims and Christians. It is exposing the true nature of the spirituality of hatred. Ultimately, Hindu oppression will cost Hinduism the most.
In one point I agree with Hindutva: Mahatma Gandhi did not liberate India. In other letters hope to explain how and why the Bible brought freedom to India and why William Carey is the Father of Modern India.
Yours, for making India a wise nation
Vishal Mangalwadi
October 25, 2026