The English Utilitarian and India | History Optional for UPSC (Notes) PDF Download

Changing Intellectual Currents in Britain and Their Impact on India

• New intellectual movements in Britain emphasized the need for improvement and reform, both in Britain and in India.
• Since the end of Warren Hastings's tenure, there has been a cautious shift towards intervening in Indian social institutions.
• Evangelicalism advocated for government intervention to free Indians from superstitious and tyrannical religious practices.
• Utilitarianism promoted social engineering and authoritarian reform.
• Both Evangelicalism and Utilitarianism believed that British rule in India was initially established through sin or crime but argued for reform to provide good governance.
• Free trade thinkers pushed for the abolition of the East India Company's trade monopoly, advocating for a free flow of trade in India.
• Charles Grant, an Evangelist, played a key role in promoting these ideas and presided over the passage of the Charter Act of 1833, which ended the Company's monopoly over Indian trade.

What is Utilitarianism 

Understanding Utilitarianism in Ethics:

• Utilitarianism is an ethical theory that suggests the morally right action is the one that maximizes utility. Utility can be understood in different ways, such as pleasure, economic well-being, and the absence of suffering.
• This theory falls under the broader category of consequentialism, which emphasizes the importance of the outcomes or consequences of actions in determining their moral worth.
• The two key figures in classical utilitarianism are Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, both 19th-century English philosophers and economists. Bentham, in particular, focused on happiness as the measure of utility, famously stating that "it is the greatest happiness of the greatest number that is the measure of right and wrong."
• Utilitarianism seeks to answer the practical question of what a person should do by advocating for actions that lead to the best possible consequences.

Growth of Classical English Utilitarianism:

• English Utilitarianism emerged from Western liberal ideas.
• Bishop Richard Cumberland, a 17th-century moral philosopher, was the first to have a Utilitarian philosophy in English history.
• A generation later,Francis Hutcheson, a British theorist, more clearly held a Utilitarian view by analyzing that the best action is the one that "procures the greatest happiness for the greatest numbers" and proposing a form of "moral arithmetic" for calculating the best consequences.
• English Utilitarianism was significantly influenced by Jeremy Bentham, who believed that individuals always seek to maximize their pleasure and minimize their pain. Bentham's ideas included:
• Utilitarianism as the basis for reform movements, testing institutions and policies by the principle of utility.
• Good laws and efficient administration as agents of change, with the rule of law as a necessary precondition for improvement.
• Penalties for harmful acts to deter individuals from harming others.
• Bentham's major work,"An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation" (1789), aimed to introduce a plan for a penal code.
• Bentham's followers included David Ricardo,James Mill, and John Austin, who contributed to economics and legal theory.
• James Mill advocated for representative government and universal male suffrage on Utilitarian grounds and supported parliamentary reform.
• John Stuart Mill, a proponent of women's suffrage and state-supported education, argued for freedom of speech, non-interference in individual behavior, and wrote "Utilitarianism" (1861), defending the Utilitarian doctrine.
• Freethinking utilitarians, followers of Bentham and Mill, sought to use India as a laboratory for their theories, believing that Indian society could be transformed through legislation.

Effects of utilitarianism

Influence of Utilitarianism in Various Fields:

• Utilitarianism has a significant impact on law, politics, and economics.
• In the context of punishment, Utilitarianism differs from the retributive theory.
• While the retributive theory focuses on making the criminal pay for their crime, Utilitarianism emphasizes preventing further crime.
• Utilitarianism aims at reforming the criminal or protecting society and deterring others through fear of punishment.
• In political philosophy, Utilitarianism grounds the authority of government and individual rights in their utility.
• This offers an alternative to natural law, natural rights, or social contract theories.
• This leads to the question of what type of government produces the best consequences.
• Utilitarians generally support democracy as a means to align government interests with the general interest.
• They advocate for individual liberty, believing that each person is the best judge of their own welfare.
• They promote the possibility of progressive social change through peaceful political processes.
• However, different assumptions can lead to varied Utilitarian conclusions.
• If one believes a strong government is needed to curb selfish interests, Utilitarian arguments might support authoritarian or conservative positions.
• In economic policy, early Utilitarians opposed government interference in trade and industry.
• They believed the economy would regulate itself for the greatest welfare.
• Over time, later Utilitarians became more skeptical of private enterprise's social efficiency.
• They supported government intervention to correct its abuses.
• As a movement for social reform in the 19th century, Utilitarianism was highly successful in the long run.
• Most of its recommendations have been implemented.
• Utilitarian arguments are now commonly used to advocate for institutional or policy changes.

James Mill's Involvement in Colonial Administration:

• James Mill was involved in the colonial administration of India from 1819 to 1835 with the East India Company.
• He believed that India needed enlightenment and progress, which he justified through his utilitarianism and theory of progress.

Utilitarianism and Indian Policies:

• Upon joining the East India Company, Mill transformed Utilitarianism into a "militant faith".
• Before his role in the Company, he wrote the "History of British India" in 1817, criticizing Indian culture and economic myths.

Periodization of Indian History:

• Mill divided Indian history into Hindu, Muslim, and British periods.
• He argued that Indians would be happier under British rule than native kings, advocating for British governance based on overall utility.

Role in Law Commission and Indian Penal Code:

• Mill's efforts led to the appointment of a Law Commission in 1833, which created the Indian Penal Code in 1835.
• He believed that British rule over regions like Bengal, Bombay, and Madras would lead to overall utility.

Paternalistic Attitude of English Utilitarianism:

• Utilitarianism in India was rooted in a paternalistic attitude, viewing Indians as needing reform from despotic rulers and superstition.
• Colonization was justified as necessary until indigenous people could govern themselves rationally.

Belief in Indian Civilization as Backward:

• British views branded Indian civilization as backward, with the English taking on the task of modernizing India.
• Mill believed that all non-European peoples would become "civilized" through European knowledge and institutions.

Mill's Perspective on Indian Progress:

• Mill acknowledged India's ancient achievements but argued that its progress had stalled.
• He aimed to bring European enlightenment to India, believing that a settlement of Englishmen would accelerate this process.

Enlightenment of Indian People:

• Mill was concerned with the global happiness of humankind, believing that civilizing all races was essential for global happiness.
• He thought that Indians would benefit from European influence, leading to progress not just in India but also in other Asian nations.

Caste System in Ancient India:

• Mill noted that the ancient caste system in India had evolved from four basic castes to thirty-six due to inter-caste marriages.

Critique of Sir William Jones:

• Mill disagreed with Sir William Jones, who had depicted India as highly advanced in civilization.
• He believed that India's past progress was notable but that the country was no longer capable of significant advancement.

The Desirability of Foreign Rule in India:

• John Stuart Mill believed that Indians benefitted from Mughal rule because the Mughals were more advanced in civilization compared to the Hindus. He argued that before the Mughals, Hindu society was held back by superstitions, but under Mughal rule, there was progress at both individual and societal levels.
• Mill saw the Mughals as superior in civilization aspects like worldview, political systems, and legal frameworks. He felt that Hindu Indians were better off under Mughal rule because they were exposed to the more advanced Persian civilization.
• Mill suggested that it was justifiable for a more advanced civilization to govern a people with retarded progress in civilization. He believed that Western civilization, particularly British rule, was a better option for Indians than Mughal rule.
• With the decline of the Mughal Empire, Mill argued that Indians faced two choices: to revert to Hindu despotism or to accept European rule, specifically British.
• From Mill's perspective, he thought it was beneficial for Indians to be governed by the British, but he also acknowledged the utility to Britain in this arrangement.

British India and the Extension of British Rule

• Mill distinguished between two types of colonies: those like America, populated by settlers, and those like British India, where the native population was the majority.
• He argued that if keeping a colony was overall disutility, it was not desirable for the mother nation to retain it. However, if there was overall utility, it could be desirable despite the mother nation suffering in the process.
• Mill and Bentham believed that keeping colonies brought neither economic nor political advantages to the mother nations. Mill often criticized the financial deficits of the East India Company and argued that colonies did not benefit the mother country by yielding permanent tribute.
• Bentham listed reasons why it was in Britain's political interest to give up British India, including:
  1. Avoiding the danger of war
  2. Eliminating corruption from patronage
  3. Simplifying government
  4. Reducing time-consuming prosecutions in Parliament
  5. Bentham believed that colonies were a major source of wars.
• Mill believed that the independence of the British colonies, like the United States, was more profitable for Britain than subjection. He argued that newly independent nations offered valuable opportunities for enhanced commercial connections and free trade.
• In the case of British India, Mill thought that granting self-governance to the economically backward Indians would not enhance trade significantly. He suggested terminating the East India Company's trade monopoly to increase competition and freedom of trade.
• Bentham argued that distant well-established colonies would govern themselves better than being governed by their mother nations due to distance.
• Mill and Bentham saw the retention of colonies as bringing disadvantages to the mother country, and Mill believed that British rule in India was in the interest of the Indians.
• Mill thought that direct British governance would enlighten India and facilitate the rapid spread of European knowledge, arts, and institutions to other Asian nations, enhancing overall human happiness.
• Mill supported the idea of extending British rule over the entire continent of India, believing it would bring enlightenment to various independent native states through either conquest or voluntary subjection.
• Throughout his life, Mill expressed contempt for war and preferred inducing voluntary subjection over conquest.

The Views of John Stuart Mill on War and British Policy in India:

• John Stuart Mill believed that wars always lead to negative consequences.
• He argued that war can only be justified if it is necessary to prevent greater evils.

Neutrality in British Policy: Pitt's Indian Act (1784):

• The Pitt's Indian Act of 1784 established a policy of neutrality for the British in India.
• This policy was reiterated in the Act of 1793.
• The Acts prohibited Governor-Generals from pursuing schemes of conquest or expanding dominion in India.
• The British Indian government was required to remain neutral towards native princes, avoiding alliances, involvement in disputes, and engaging in war except for self-defense.

Mill's Agreement and Critique:

• Mill agreed with the British government's stance against conquest in India, supporting wars only for defensive reasons.
• He praised the policy of neutrality for its aim to prevent war.
• However, Mill criticized the strict adherence to neutrality, believing it was often impractical in India.

System of Vigilant Interference:

• Mill proposed a system of vigilant interference as a more effective approach than strict neutrality in some situations.
• He argued that this system was defensive in spirit, similar to neutrality.

Critique of British Aggression:

• Before joining the East India Company in 1819, Mill had condemned the aggressive British policy and violent conquests over native princes.
• He believed that the power of interference in the affairs of Indian princes could be misused by governors-general for personal ambitions.

Condemnation of Governor-General Wellesley:

• Mill criticized the personal ambitions of governors-general, particularly Lord Wellesley(1798-1805).
• Wellesley's alliance with the Peshwa led to the second Maratha war.
• Mill argued that the problem was not the alliance itself but Wellesley's hidden personal motives.

Legitimate Means of Subjugation:

• Mill believed that the only legitimate way to subjugate independent native princes was to gain their consent.
• He emphasized the importance of respecting the sovereignty of native princes.
• War against them was justifiable only if they threatened British India with aggression.

Impact of British Utilitarianism on India:

• Utilitarianism influenced several administrative and judicial reforms in India. Figures like Cornwallis and Macaulay had different perspectives, with Cornwallis pre-dating utilitarianism and Macaulay being a liberal influenced by various ideas of his time.
• Utilitarian thinkers such as James Mill, Jeremy Bentham, David Ricardo, and John Stuart Mill were key in shaping the administration and judicial system in India.
• Utilitarians valued education that benefited society and prepared Indians for roles in the British bureaucracy. Their ideas were reflected in Macaulay’s 1835 Minute on Indian Education.
• Mill opposed Indianization of the government, believing Indians were unfit for self-governance. Utilitarians advocated for a British-run government in India.
• Utilitarian ideas gained traction in India, especially with James Mill’s influence in the East India Company.
• Lord William Bentinck, as Governor-General from 1828 to 1835, implemented utilitarian principles in financial management and modernization projects. He reformed the court system, promoted Western education, and worked to suppress practices like Sati.
• Bentinck’s Bengal Sati Regulation of 1829 made Sati illegal in British India.
• James Mill advocated for the ryotwari system based on David Ricardo’s Law of Rent, promoting government control over land rent to encourage efficient agriculture and prevent a parasitic landlord class.
• Mill’s ryotwari settlements involved government assessment of land for taxation based on soil fertility, valid for 20 to 30 years.