Current Affairs

John Darwin argued that a formal empire could be defined by a sustained effort to assimilate a country to the political, economic or cultural system of another power. (John Darwin (1997) SS9.2). Britain a maritime power and China a land-based empire, initially took significant different approaches to the expansion of their empires and how these empires were attained and then managed. But ultimately Britain’s influence on India militarily, economically, culturally and politically after 1857 mirrored how Chinese imperial culture before the nineteenth century expanded its influence militarily, economically, politically and culturally. Approaches taken by both British and Chinese expansionist policy took different forms, but it was through British mercantile interests in the periphery that led to a diplomatic approach from the British crown to the Chinese emperor and ultimately the expansion of British influence that led to an informal treaty that determined mercantile influence over the British and Chinese empires.

Adam Smith in 1776 wrote in the Wealth of Nations that China was “one of the most richest, that is, one of the most cultivated, most industrious and most populous countries in the world.” (Adam Smith, 1910 (1776) pp63-64). In the 18^th Century, the East India Company was importing raw silks , porcelain and by 1725, 250,000 pounds of tea a year from Canton (Stephen Platt (2018)pp12).  Pomeranz argues that by 1800, the Chinese  in the larger regions equalled the most prosperous European countries and that they ate, dressed, lived better than and consumed more sugar than any European nation. (Pomeranz, 2000, Pp.38-42). From the 1740s to 1790s China’s population doubled from 150 million to 300 million, a third of the worlds population, which was made possible through the introduction of new crops, such as corn and potatoes from the Americas’. (Stephen Platt, (2018, Pp47-48).

In contrast Britain in 1760, had colonies in North America, the Caribbean and enclaves in Bombay, Madras and Bengal (World Map 5(1763) Muir, R & Phillip G, Pp9). Britain depended on access to China through Portuguese Macao in order for its factories to trade in Canton, and was wholly dependent on the East India Company to further its interests in India and trade with China. By 1800, Britain’s population was less than nine million (Bernard Waites, (2009) Pp. 131), it had lost possession of the United States of America, it was at war with France not only in Europe but also India and the Americas and had lost access to its markets in Europe. It took six months for the East India Company in London to communicate an order to its periphery in Bengal, it’s interests in India were dependent on a merchant elite in the periphery, so much so, that in 1793, Lord Macartney’s embassy to China was sponsored by the East India Company. British interests in India was meant to be self-financing and was run by the Eat India Company, who were answerable to their stockholders, and by the 1800s with the increase of troops and expansion in India, revenue from trade did not cover the costs involved. Revenue was raised through indemnities , tribute and subventions from states, and tax from administered territories became the source of the East India Companies income. (John Keay (2010),. Pp.412-414).

In 1800, the Qing dynasty depended on 20,000 civil officials, who raised revenue of 100 million Taels, which related to 5 percent taxation for every member of the population in China, (Adshead, (1995),. Pp246: Bernard Waites (2009),. Pp. 130-131). Bernard Waites argues that Chinese officials were drawn from the social elites whose social rank was determined by their qualification through exams, which tested their knowledge of Confucian classics, which immersed students in Confucian morals. Voltair wrote that “the human mind cannot imagine a better government than this one where everything is to be decided by large tribunals subordinated to each other, of which the members are admitted after severe examinations.” (Voltaire, Essai sur le moers),. Stephen Platt,. (2018), Pp49)). In essence, China was multidimensional both social culturally and economically, territorially concentrated, supportive of it constituent parts and heavily centralised at its core (Alexander,. J. Mortyl (1997)SS,2.1))

In comparison, Britain in 1800, had 16,000 civilians serving the central state. And British revenue was equivalent to 45 million taels, government spending translated in 1800, as being 25 percent of British national income. (Adshead,. (1995),. Pp246; (Bernard Waites (2009),. Pp. 130-131)). The East India Company in 1806 introduced exams for the selection of candidates for service in India, which would in  time lead to the adoption of exams to join the civil service in Britain.  (Stephen Plattt,. (2018),. Pp.49) Orientalists with the East India Company had a genuine regard for the Institutions in India, they gained an understanding of the culture , so much so that Ahalayabai Hoker, from Malwa warned against association  with the British who were “so restrained in their language and so disciplined in the field, […]while other foes made their intentions clear by denunciations of one’s family or religion.” (John Keay,. (2010),.Pp425). Company men explored India geographically, they mastered the Languages and literature and classified the flora and fauna. Scholar administrators like Colin MacKenzie, Thomas Munro, John Malcolm and others contributed significantly to the scholarship of the culture, geography and history of their areas, making it possible to be seen making strong arguments for British intervention, and as such John Malcolm wrote in 1820 that “the general opinion of the natives of our comparative superiority in good faith, wisdom and strength of their own rulers.” (John Keay (2010) Pp427)).   However, Thomas Munro spelt out the savagery of British rule in the districts around Madras and said that “none had treated Indian’s with so much scorn as we. None has stigmatised the whole people as unworthy with trust, or as incapable of honesty, and as fir to be employed only where we cannot do without them.” (John Keay (2010),. Pp.427).

Qianlong ruled China with an iron fist, the dynasty assimilated into Han culture but retained it identity, as Macartney put it, “there are two distinct nations in China…. the Chinese and the Tartars, whose character essentially differs.” (quoted in Craymer-Byng, (1962): Bernard Waites (2009) Pp128)). Qianlong ruled an empire that had extended imperial rule and extended Qing influence. His rule was celebrated by over 1500 poems and essays, and writings were engraved on stone monuments, and portraits were painted in both the Chinese as well as European styles. Giuseppe Castiglione created paintings and built marble buildings with a Jesuit priest in the European style, and by the time of Macartneys embassy, Qinlong had ruled China for 58 years. Qinlong was not unaware of Britain, or China’s trade with it, he needed the silver tariff, which China was the largest net importer. The silver was circulated inland and stabilised an economy that was unable to increase its revenue from land taxes, because of Kangxi’s pledge to win over landowners, he promised that land taxes would not be raised again, and furthermore resources were needed to combat the White Lotus rebellion. (Stephen Platt,. (2018),. Pp45-54)). Macartney, was welcomed to the court of Qianlong as an important emissay of Britain because of the trade it brought China. Macartney, after his failure to secure an embassy in China “perceived that the ground to be hollow under a vast speedy decay, […] a slight collision might elicit a fire […] and spread flames of revolt from the extremity of China to the other (Cramer Byng,.(1962),. Pp236-9))

Gallagher and Robinson argued that it was the energy of private interest-commercial, missionary and settler that changed how its interests were perceived at the core, and in this sense the free trade lobby had insisted that India’s economy be opened to investment and enterprise, which challenged the East India’s companies influence at the core. In 1813, it had lost its monopoly in India, and by 1833 it had given up its more valuable trade with China. The informal imperialism of the past had served a purpose and the East India company only existed in name only and existed as an influencer in name only. John Darwin argues that Victorian imperialism was capable of aggressive interventionism determined by public opinion and universalist arguments that created a mid-Victorian imperialism, which was “acutely vulnerable to the politico-financial cycle of enthusiasm and disillusionment at home.”  (John Darwin (1997) SS 9.2,. Pp1-4).

In this sense the opium grown in India and exported to China at an enormous profit to the traders was highlighted in a Times article published on 23^rd October 1839, and titled: Proceeding with outr view of the opium question, which matters of more immediate interest. The article galvanised public opinion, but it was not until after signing the Treaty of Nankin in 1842, that Lord Shaftesbury (Ashley) in April 1843 presented petitions against the trade and that the opium trade “did immense harm and damage to the moral welfare of nations and individuals. British encouragement of the infamous traffic checked the progress of Christianity and impeded the civilization of mankind.” (Geoffrey Finnalson (1981),. Pp174-175). These moral arguments put forward in parliament and widely circulated  did not change Britain’s reliance on gunboat diplomacy and interference in Chinese imperial affairs and sovereignty, but it did lead to its promotion of the Qing as an imperial power that was supported by British interests.

Post the 1857 mutiny, the policy of overturning the six hundred autonomous princely states, as had been the policy of Bentnick-Macauley and Dalhousie, was superseded by promotion of a hierarchal structure that promoted the existing hierarchies, with Queen Victoria being crowned as the empress of India. David Cannadine’s (2002) Orientalism argues that on the collection of revenue the Raj needed dependable allies, and that the ‘preferred metropolitan’ model could be applied to India in a way that was translatable to both Indian society and British,” (David Cannadine (2002) SS10.3 Pp2). In essence Britain had attained a structure of civil service that was determined by a form of indirect rule, while the rest of India was under the administration of its own. (Groenholt, (2006) p.629. (Bernard Waites (2009)Pp,110)) These ideas and concepts that Britain promoted in India created the illusion of otherness between the British and Indians, a society determined by structures defining identity that dominated through authority, culture and caste. Edward Said argued that “knowledge is never neutral and the object of scrutiny, and the legitimacy to act in the belief that one’s actions are empirically justified” (Bernard Waites (2009) p.94).

Ultimately, the Qing empire and British Indian empire ended because they lacked an ideology that could envelop the majority into the imperial culture that was dominant. The maritime power of Britain was dependent initially on the doctrines of mercantilism and free trade, which lead to economic arguments from the periphery with dominating doctrines that determined the cores ideological approach. In a similar way Qing China’s military, economic and ideological sinews were dependent on a powerful elite and at the core of its government, and though the Qing assimilated into the culture of China, and expanded it’s borders, they were essentially a minority power dominating the economy, ideology and bureaucracy of the majority. In essence Britain and China’s power was determined by cultural difference with mechanisms that coerced and demanded consent of the majority to accept the arguments of imperial rule and the institutions governing them.