New Delhi, Jan 4 (NationPress) The narrative of 19th-century India, documented through the perspectives of its foreign rulers, reveals a striking contradiction. Although the British East India Company (EIC) professed to govern for the "welfare and happiness of the inhabitants", presenting "new and valuable property" and administering justice, the reality deduced from parliamentary discussions in London painted a much grimmer picture: a system weighed down by colossal debt, a suppressed native press, and a fundamental dynamic where Indians were seen not as fellow-subjects, but as those over whom the British acted as "despots".

One conflict that epitomized this deep contradiction was the Pindari War from 1817 to 1819. Within the esteemed chambers of the British Parliament, Mr. Canning, the President of the Board of Control, heralded the campaign as an essential act of "self-defence against the aggressions of the Pindarries". Yet, he simultaneously revealed a chilling reality that characterized British dominance: the "irrepressible tendency to expansion" of the Indian empire, where the only discernible alternative to continuous aggression was either "conquest or extinction".

From the Indian viewpoint, this doctrine of "irrepressible expansion" was not an organic occurrence but a meticulously crafted political and military rationale for the systematic dismantling of the subcontinent's remaining sovereign entities. It was a war that India was compelled to engage in, and forced to finance, ensuring that the weight of imperial ambition rested solely on the colonized populace.

The Financial Crucible of Conquest

To grasp the impetus behind the British need for unending conquest, one must investigate the precarious financial structure of the EIC. By the early 19th century, the EIC had evolved beyond merely a trading enterprise; it had transformed into a colossal entity wielding sovereign powers—military authority, administrative governance, and taxation rights. However, this formidable entity was persistently drowning in debt.

The vast territorial revenues siphoned from India were "largely devoured by the expenses of the British administration and its military operations". The interest-bearing debt that stood at nearly seven million pounds in 1793 had surged to an estimated 26 million pounds by 1813. This overwhelming financial burden, often contracted under the guise of providing "defence and protection" for the very possessions being seized, indicated that conquest was not merely advantageous for strategic expansion but utterly crucial for economic survival.

Canning's assertion that expansion stemmed from a "struggle for existence and security" rings hollow when viewed through the Indian lens, which perceived its own wealth being systematically drained to sustain this ruinous "privatized imperialism". The profits from trade since 1793 (amounting to 6,289,405 pounds) had been completely consumed by "debts and expenses incurred in respect of the territorial acquisitions in India".

Thus, the "irrepressible tendency to expansion" was not an unfortunate political reality but a desperate, self-perpetuating mechanism whereby the EIC, unable to survive on trade or existing revenues, had to perpetually acquire new territories to settle its previous conflicts and sustain its administration. India was bearing the cost of its own subjugation.

The Pindari Scourge as Imperial Pretext

The immediate catalyst for the war was undeniably grim. The Pindarries were characterized by Canning as an anomalous entity "without recognized government or national existence". Their actions were punctuated by "unmatched atrocities". Accounts of their raids recount “rapine, murder in all its forms, torture, rape, and destruction”.

Sources recount horrifying acts: the torment of innocent individuals to extort concealed treasures, and the ultimate despair of the populace, leading to instances where entire female populations of villages "threw themselves into wells as the sole refuge from these savage and barbarous marauders".

In 1816, a particularly audacious incursion into Madras territory, resulting in nearly a million sterling in plunder and devastation, finally compelled the government at home to act.

Canning contended that this situation necessitated action, driven by the need for the "vindication of national honour, and the fulfillment of national duty". The British government, having effectively displaced native rulers who might have sympathized with the victims, now bore a "sacred duty" to avenge the injuries.

However, the Indian perspective interprets this moralistic rationale as a calculated pretext. The war, while ostensibly against scattered bandits, was universally acknowledged by the British administration as a strategic gamble: eliminating the Pindarries posed the risk of inciting "all the elements of a restless and discontented populace" and potentially provoking the major Maratha powers.

This conflict was thus orchestrated not just to regulate the border, but to obliterate the entire remaining framework of indigenous military power. As parliamentary critics pointed out, the war directly contributed to the "further dismantling of existing native polities and the expansion of direct or indirect British authority".

The Pindari War was merely the vital operational phase for the "irrepressible tendency to expansion" to fully manifest itself, ensuring that no significant Indian state remained capable of challenging the EIC’s growing empire.

The Illusion of Sovereignty and the Extinction of Rivals

The British were acutely aware that pursuing the Pindari War meant confronting the formidable Maratha chiefs, whom they suspected of harboring a "deep-laid conspiracy to strike a blow that would simultaneously dismantle British power".

The vulnerability of the Maratha states was rooted in the fact that they had already been politically neutralized by British policy. Lord Morpeth, a parliamentary critic, pointedly questioned whether rulers such as the Peshwa could be anticipated to express gratitude when they had been stripped of genuine power, left with a "barren sceptre", and subjected to "the mockery of independence". The British Subsidiary Alliance system had effectively hollowed out their autonomy.

It was this backdrop of political suffocation that led to the inevitable eruption: the Peshwa, followed by the Rajah of Nagpore, unexpectedly breached their "most solemn agreements" with treachery and violence.

This hostility, although unforeseen by some British officials, was the desperate, predictable response of sovereigns who understood that the British peace policy was merely a consolidation before the final takeover.

The aftermath of the ensuing conflicts was the swift annihilation of the Maratha military apparatus, sealed by decisive victories like the one orchestrated by Brigadier-General Smith against the Peshwa’s concentrated forces. By cornering the Maratha chiefs, the British ensured that the Pindari "horde had ceased to exist as a body" within three months of the campaign commencing.

The ultimate outcome of the war was thus the consolidation of British power, fulfilling the prophecy of "conquest or extinction"—not for the British, but for the native polities themselves.

The Double Standard of Justice and Honour

The British assertion that the war was fought to uphold "national honour" and enforce "principles of justice" is dramatically undermined by the debates at the time regarding how that justice was applied in India.

A specific and alarming incident that reached the floor of Parliament concerned the military conduct of General Sir Thomas Hislop following the capture of Talnier fort. After the fort was taken and the garrison executed, the Killedar (commander), who had already surrendered, was deliberately executed.

This act ignited intense debate, as critics contended that the Killedar could not be summarily punished for treason by British authority. As Lord Lansdowne noted, under "every rule of European war", evidence of the Killedar's complicity in continued resistance was necessary, and, crucially, accountability for rebellion rested solely with his native sovereign (Holkar), not the British.

The debate, which compelled the House of Commons to reserve its opinion on the execution, highlighted that British notions of "justice and humanity" were highly selective, demanding that the British legislature apply them to India as they would in Europe. The failure to uniformly apply these standards demonstrated that the rule of law in India was subordinate to the dictates of military and imperial convenience.

This selective application of "honour" was mirrored in the EIC's stringent control of information. The press in India was "perfectly fettered", requiring the approval of government secretaries before publication. Why? Because the administration feared that open discussion could "excite irritation and hostility" among the natives by criticizing religion or informing them "of the peculiar tenure by which the British government held their power".

The critics opposing the censorship were unequivocal: "Nothing could be more dangerous than freedom of discussion under a government founded upon blood and supported by injustice". The entire imperial structure, therefore, depended on keeping the populace in a state of darkness regarding the true nature of the rule.

The Irrepressible Economic Exploitation

The "irrepressible tendency to expansion" was ultimately linked to a parallel, "irrepressible tendency" towards economic exploitation that crippled India's indigenous economy. While the EIC amassed territories, the financial and commercial benefits flowed primarily outward.

The existence of the EIC's trade monopoly was perceived by British merchants and manufacturers across the kingdom as "unjust" and a hardship "bordering on injustice".

Petitions detailed how foreigners, particularly American merchants, enjoyed a freer and more prosperous trade with British possessions in India and China than most British subjects. This illustrated that the monopoly existed not for commercial efficiency—as American individual enterprise proved superior—but to serve the EIC's unique hybrid status as both ruler and merchant.

This meant that India's economic potential was systematically stifled. The utilization of Indian resources, such as its excellent timber for shipbuilding, was constrained to protect British domestic industries, a practice deemed an act of "injustice and oppression" that denied India the benefit of its "great natural advantages".

British manufacturers feared losing their industry and the replacement of British seamen by Indian "Lascars". As critics argued, preventing the use of Indian ships and sailors disadvantaged British merchants and forced trade towards foreigners.

More broadly, Indian resources and wealth were utilized to fuel Britain's industrial and imperial growth, leading to widespread poverty. The vast market India presented was restricted to a single purchaser (the EIC) or foreign merchants.

As Mr. Wallace argued, the Indian populace itself was "deeply interested" in the commerce of its country, as it provided the "reward of his industry, and support of his family". When that reward was diverted away by colonial policy, it engendered the "widespread poverty and underdevelopment" that characterized the long-term ramifications of the British administration.

Conclusion: The Triumph of Necessity Over Morality

Mr. Canning's articulation of the "irrepressible tendency to expansion" stands as a rare moment of stark imperial honesty. It affirmed the Indian comprehension that the wars, whether against the Pindarries or the Marathas, were not accidental skirmishes or unfortunate yet necessary acts of policing, but rather the inevitable, logical conclusion of a system demanding "conquest or extinction".

The Indian perspective views this epoch not as a triumph of "national honour," but as the final consolidation of a foreign dominion: a hegemony achieved through brutal military efficacy, concealed by selective justice (as evidenced at Talnier), enforced by a fettered press that suppressed truth, and financed by the crippling debt of the territories being conquered.

The Pindari War resulted in the "extirpation" of the bandits, but concurrently, it led to the extinction of India's last powerful independent polities.

India was left with restricted freedoms, its economy shackled to serve British needs, and its true rulers operating under a system that many contemporaneous observers deemed despotic and upheld by injustice. The empire survived and expanded, but only by compelling the Indian populace to pay the ultimate price of their sovereignty for the "necessity" of the British system.

(The author is a researcher specializing in Indian History and contemporary geopolitical affairs)