A look back at plate VII.A.2 will reveal certain states within India and along its western coast which, as of 1819, were residual areas of independence, entirely or almost entirely sur- rounded by British-held territory. Those included the frag- mented domains left to Sindhia as well as the minor states of Dholpur, Sirohi, Kolaba, and Janjira. All these were to be ab- sorbed by the British by 1844, in which year a brief and final war with Sindhia took place. Latter-day official British writing (e.g., that of the Imperial Gazetteer) suggests that Gwalior became a protected state of the British by treaties concluded in 1817 and 1818; but this conclusion is not clearly supported by a reading of the treaties themselves or by study of contemporary maps, which expressly show it as independent. Other small coastal enclaves absorbed were the few remaining coastal possessions of the Dutch, acquired by the British in 1824 in exchange for British possessions in Sumatra, and the Danish holdings of Tranquebar and Serampore, acquired by purchase in 1845.
The principal external involvements of the British in the period 1819–57 were in the areas along and beyond what was then their northwestern frontier, particularly with Punjab, Sind, and Afghanistan (see map (c)). Both Punjab and Sind had been parts of, or vassals to, the Afghan kingdom during most of the latter half of the 18th century; but a large part of the former asserted its independence in 1798, while the latter, thanks to internal strife within Afghanistan, was able to enjoy substantial autonomy. From 1819 to 1838 the Sikh kingdom of Punjab expanded repeatedly at Afghan expense, and its grow- ing strength impressed the British, who wished to maintain it as a friendly neighbor. At the same time, Afghanistan was peri- odically torn by internal strife and threatened from without by Persia and Bukhara as well as by the Sikhs. In 1837, after the British refused an appeal from Kabul for aid against the Sikhs, the Afghans entered into diplomatic negotiations with emis- saries from Russia, the nature of which remains a matter of historical controversy. Whatever the facts may have been, the British saw in those contacts the makings of a major Russian threat to their dominion in India. Given the right of passage through Punjab by the Sikhs, they launched a two-pronged in- vasion of Afghanistan and installed their own favored claimant to the Kabul throne. Initial success, however, ultimately turned into one of the worst disasters in British military history. When the dust had settled, the former Afghan king, Dost Muhammad, was restored to his throne, and before his death in 1863 he had reestablished his writ through virtually the whole of present- day Afghanistan. But, if Afghanistan were not to be reduced, greater security for India on the northwest might yet be ob- tained from the acquisition of Punjab and Sind. The latter, occupied by the British since 1839, was annexed after a brief struggle with the ruling Talpur Mirs in 1843. The subjection of Punjab was achieved with greater difficulty. In 1846, after the first of two Anglo-Sikh wars, all the territories to the east of the Beas and Sutlej Rivers, and the mountainous region of Jammu and Kashmir, were ceded to the British. The latter re- gion at the time was ruled by Ghulab Singh, a Dogra Rajput vassal of the Sikh king. The British, in return for his remaining aloof in the struggle just concluded, permitted him to purchase from them his own former fief, and the princely state of Jammu and Kashmir was thereby created. The second Anglo- Sikh War, fought in 1848–49, resulted in the annexation of the remainder of the once proud, but short-lived, Sikh kingdom.
The unification of most of Burma (see map (b)) under Alaungpaya in the years 1752–57 followed a lengthy period of struggle between the Burmans and the Mons of the region around Pegu. Subsequent military thrusts were sent out in all directions, and though they were often crowned with success, the gains from war not infrequently failed to be consolidated. Nevertheless, victories against major states such as Siam and even China fanned the expansionist ardor of the Burmans. Arakan, intermittently a part of the Burmese kingdom, was subdued in 1784, and in the period 1813–19 expeditions were directed into Manipur and Assam. The British, responding to various appeals for help from local rajas and reacting to al- leged provocations by Burma on the Arakan-Bengal border, launched the First Burmese War, after which most of coastal Burma was annexed. Relations between the Burmese kings and the British were never good, and an incident involving British ships in Rangoon harbor touched off a second war in 1852 whereby Lower Burma (Pegu) also became a British possession.
Sources (in addition to those in the General Bibliography)
Great Britain, Parliament, House of Commons, East India, Statement . . . (1863); India, Army Intelligence Branch (1907–11).
A. Arrowsmith (1845); G. and J. Cary (1824); W. Hughes (c. 1860); Society for the Diffusion of Useful Knowledge (1831–35); E. Stanford (1857); J. Walker (1846), (1856).
I. Banerjee (1936, 1947); N. G. Chaudhuri (1964); C. L. Cho- pra (1960); J. D. Cunningham (1849), (1955); H. M. Durand (1879); A. Fletcher (1965); A. Forbes (1892); W. K. Fraser- Tytler (1967); H. R. Gupta (1944), (1952); G. E. Harvey (1925); H. Havelock (1840); W. Hough (1853); U Htin Aung (1965), (1967); R. A. Huttenback (1962); J. W. Kaye (1874); S. R. Kohli (1967); C. M. MacGregor (1871, listed under General References); G. F. MacMunn (1929); J. Mal- colm (1832); Mohana Lala (1846); J. A. Norris (1967); W. G. Osborne (1840); K. M. Panikkar (1953); V. W. W. S. Purcell (1965); S. Regani (1963); R. R. Sethi (1960); H. Singh (1965); K. Singh (1963–66); R. M. Sinha (1967); A. Swinson (1967); P. M. Sykes (1940); F. N. Trager (1966); H. Yule (1858).
VII.A.4–5. British Mapping of India, 1788, 1824, and 1856
Two atlas plates are devoted to documenting the British con- cern with mapping their holdings in India and to making evi- dent the steady improvement in the quality of cartography over the period from the late 18th century, when James Rennell served as the first surveyor-general of the Bengal Presidency, to the mid–19th century, by which time surveying methods had assumed the basic form they were to maintain until the advent of aerial photography (cf. plate VII.A.6, maps (b) and (c)). For each of three maps, excerpts have been selected for two areas—one around Delhi, the other extending west from Cal- cutta—and these have been presented at essentially the same scale. Comparisons among the three maps are there by facilitated.
The difference in the quality of cartography between the Delhi area and the Calcutta area as shown on the Rennell map is striking. Errors of position on the former are sometimes more than thirty miles. Compare, for example, the locations of Karnal ("Carnawl," "Kurnal") or Meerut ("Merat") on the Rennell map with those on the 1856 map by Walker. But one is struck that by 1856 the area around Delhi appears to be decidedly better mapped than much of the area west of Cal- cutta, which happens to consist of a number of petty princely states with largely tribal populations. This indicates a shift in the focus of British military concerns toward the northwest and shows the relative neglect that princely and tribal terri- tories experienced. Note in particular the varying degrees of generalization in the depiction of state boundaries on the two excerpts from the Walker map.
The depiction on plate VII.B.1 of internal administrative boundaries as of 1857 is based mainly on the 1856 Walker map, which we have partially reproduced. Although the dates match almost perfectly, one must not assume that the 1857 map could properly have been simply compiled from the orig- inal of 1856. Maps often involve a considerable time lag be- tween events in the area depicted (e.g., the building of new roads, the alteration of boundaries, changes in sovereignty, etc.) and the information available to the cartographer, espe- cially if the cartographer happens to be in England. This leads to the general caveat that reliance on maps for historical infor- mation, even when the cartographical standard is high, must always be conditional. In general, the older the map, the greater the time lag it is likely to embody. In view of this caveat we have tried wherever practicable to check original map sources for a given period against other forms of documentation, espe- cially primary sources, where questions of territorial jurisdic- tion are concerned; but doing so is a slow and tedious process and the exigencies of scheduling work were such that minor errors of omission must have occurred from time to time.
The sources for plates VII.A.4 and 5 are indicated in the cap- tions relating to the maps thereon.
VII.A.6. Systematization of British Knowledge of India
Mention was made in the introductory text for section VII of the important role that geographic intelligence played in helping the British conquer India and administer it efficiently thereafter. Much of this intelligence, naturally, was expressed through maps, examples of which have been provided by plates VII.A.4 and 5 as well as by plates VI.B.3–5. On plate VII.A.6 we present a miscellany of geographic materials indicative of early British attempts not only to amass intelligence but also to systematize it so it would be most useful.
Map (a) is a synoptic road map—the first of its kind for India, so far as we are aware—which, along with more detailed sectional road maps, was of great service for military and ci- vilian travelers of its day. The map is from Rennell's lucid, descriptive, and analytic Memoir of a Map of Hindoostan . . ., published in 1788, which may be claimed as the first modern
To prepare an adequate controlled, large-scale topographic map series of India, a network of triangulation stations was a prerequisite. Work on such a network was begun by William Lambton, who in 1802 measured the initial baseline at Ma- dras, from which subsequent triangles were measured (map (b)). His labors, given little support at first, finally received the attention they deserved when the Great Trigonometrical Survey of India was established in 1818. In 1832, Lambton's plan for a triangulation network blanketing India was scrapped by his successor, George Everest, who devised a more efficient "gridiron" system of coverage, work on which was to engage the Survey continuously until its essential completion in 1890. The system was extended into new areas as British power spread and was periodically subjected to partial revision to en- sure ever greater accurancy.
The first large-scale topographic map series to cover India (see map (c)), was commissioned by the East India Company in 1823 and completed early in the 20th century. Since then, near-complete coverage at scales of 1/4 inch to the mile, 1/2 inch to the mile, and/or 1 inch to the mile, drafted according to more exacting standards and with contours replacing ha- ohures to show relief, has also been provided. Current topo- graphic map coverage is indexed on plate XIII.C.2.
To assess land revenue equitably and to expeditiously revise the assessments from time to time, it is necessary to prepare cadastral maps of each village or other revenue unit subject to taxation (see map (d)). While adequate cadastral maps call for less accuracy than do topographic maps, and while such maps need not be tied in to a triangulation network, they still require the labors of trained surveyors. In the aggregate, their preparation for the greater part of India, begun early in the 19th century, has been a task of truly monumental proportions.
These are, in the main, indicated on plate VII.A.6 itself; but see also C. E. D. Black (1891); C. R. Markham (1878); and all four volumes of R. H. Phillimore (1945–58).
VII.B. INDIA AT THE TIME OF THE 1857 REVOLT
VII.B.1. Administrative Divisions, 1857
By 1857, a high degree of administrative uniformity had been imposed on the British domains in India. The territorial expression of the administrative system is conveyed by the two maps of plate VII.B.1, the nature of its components being in- dicated by the legends and the map key. Additional relevant remarks appear in the text for plate VII.A.3.
The principal source for plate VII.B.1 is a map, at the scale of 1:2,000,000, by John Walker, geographer to the East India Company. Excerpts from this map have been included on plates VII.A.4 and 5. The text relevant to those plates should be read for its evaluative comments. We have purposely main- tained Walker's archaic spelling on our own map in the belief that scholars working on the period may benefit by knowing the forms of place names then in use, particularly if they have to search out information in alphabetically arranged sources such as gazetteers. The modern spelling of almost all place names indicated may be ascertained by comparing plate VII.A.6 with plate XIII.C.1, relating to the year 1947.
We are not aware of any map earlier than Walker's that provides the same degree of detailed administrative informa- tion for the whole of India.
John Walker (1856, see full citation on plate VII.A.4), checked against C. U. Aitchison (1929, see citation in General Bibliog- raphy for section VII); and Great Britain, Parliament, House of Commons, East India (Maps and Statistics), (1868–69, listed under Government Documents).
VII.B.2. India and Ceylon, Economy, 1857; Systems of Land Revenue Settlement; Allocation of Zamindari Estates in a Portion of the North-Western Provinces, 1844
In the introductory text for atlas section VII, we touched on the role of the British as economic innovators in South Asia. Additional details on specific innovations are provided in the end cover Chronology of South Asia. Plate VII.B.2 gives car- tographic expression to those innovations with a clear loca- tional nexus and also provides a synthetic view of a wide range of features of the economic landscape of India and Ceylon as of the year 1857. The plate, and map (a) in particular, might profitably be compared with plate XI.E.1, which seeks to pro- vide a similar view of the economy of South Asia as of 1961. Although the land-use data of the 1857 map are not as reliable as those for 1961, being in fact largely inferential, we believe they provide a reasonably good basis for comparison. Much as we would wish to do so, however, we cannot distinguish in any reliable way on the 1857 map the areas of relatively com- mercialized agriculture and those of relatively subsistence- oriented agriculture, as we have done for 1961; but we can