Clearly,
so dramatic a development as the disarming of a people used to
carrying and wielding weapons could not but have had major
consequences. Clearly this issue deserves to be studied at length.
In the present context, I would wish to underscore the point that
the British move affected Muslims more adversely than Hindus for the
simple reason that Muslims were more dependent on the use of the
sword than Hindus who had successfully maintained their primacy in
business even during Mughal rule4
and had been much quicker to take advantage of the opportunities
Western education offered them for entry into professions such as
law and government employment.
I am convinced that a significant and
fundamental shift took place in the power balance between Hindus and
Muslims as a result of the consolidation of the Raj and the
disarming of the populace which began in 1818 and was completed in
1858, and that this shift was not reversed by the pro-Muslim change
in the official attitude, starting from the 1870s, and the policy of
divide and rule, though it led to partition in 1947. Indeed, it
could not be reversed.
|