www.ijcrt.

org © 2017 IJCRT | Volume 5, Issue 4 Nov 2017 | ISSN: 2320-2882

James Mill :History of British India

Prof. Raju
Asst Professor of History
Govt First Grade College – Sagara

Abstract

This paper argues that James Mill's History of British India is, on the one hand, intellectually linked to the Scottish
Enlightenment, while, on the other hand, moves beyond that intellectual tradition in the post-French Revolution age.
This paper makes three central claims. First, it argues that in reacting to Montesqueiu's idea of oriental society, the
contributors to the Scottish Enlightenment used ideas of moral philosophy, philosophical history and political economy
in order to create an image of a wealthy Asia whose societies possessed barbarous social manners. Some new writings
about Asian societies that were published in the 1 790s adopted Montesquieu' s views of oriental societies, and started
to consider the history of manners and of political institutions as the true criteria of the state of civilisation. These
works criticised some Asian social manners, such as female slavery, and questioned previous assumptions about the
high civilisation of Indian and Chinese societies.

This paper argues that Mill's History, following William Robertson's History of America, was based on a study of the
historical mind to interpret the texts published in the 1790s and the early nineteenth century. Second, this paper argues
that Mill adopted Francis Jeffrey's idea of semi-barbarism in his study of India. In the late eighteenth and early
nineteenth centuries, William Alexander and Francis Jeffrey started to think of history in the context of a tri -stadia!
theory, which was more idealist and less materialist than the earlier four-stages theory. Mill tried to develop a holistic
view of Asian society. In so doing, he came to criticise the British government's mistaken mercantilist view of
government, which he regarded as unsuitable for the conditions of Indian society. Following Adam Smith's moral
philosophy, and inspired by the socio-economic progress of North America, Mill suggested that the primary goals for
the British government in India should be to improve its agriculture and to secure social freedom. This paper also
concludes that the discussions about Chinese society played an important part in shaping Mill's view of the concept of
semi-barbarism. He prescribed a powerful state for India in order to remove the mercantilist view of government, and
to execute administrative and judicial reforms. This paper concludes that, while Scottish philosophical history helped
Mill to create a critique of the British government's attempts to govern India as a commercial society, Benthamite
Utilitarianism taught Mill to see history from a teleological viewpoint.

Key words: History of British India, civilization, Utilitarians, the Burkean school,humanism

Objective

This paper intends to look at oriental society through western lens in general and James Mill History of British India
in particular

IJCRT1133180 International Journal of Creative Research Thoughts (IJCRT) www.ijcrt.org 897

www.ijcrt.org © 2017 IJCRT | Volume 5, Issue 4 Nov 2017 | ISSN: 2320-2882

Introduction

This paper will examine Mill's History with respect to three successive phenomena - the Scottish Enlightenment, the
Edinburgh Review and, finally, Benthamite Utilitarianism. It will analyse Mill's ideas on civilisation and his History
in the context of the intellectual legacy of the Scottish Enlightenment, in which Mill was brought up, in that of the
radical or late Enlightenment age, wherein, sometimes in conflict with the prevailing ideology, he tried to rationalise
imperialist government. Historians generally set Mill's life and thought in two contexts: Benthamite Utilitarianism and
the Scottish Enlightenment. With respect to Benthamite Utilitarianism, students emphasise Mill's role in propagating
radical reform and democracy. Stokes' English Utilitarians and India is a study of this kind par excellence; he contrasts
Mill with the Burkean school of British rulers in India, including Thomas Munro (1761-1827), John Malcolm (1769-
1833), Charles Metcalfe (1785-1846) and Mountstuart Elphinstone (1779-1859). Stokes argues that, in contrast to the
Romantic school, which favoured a paten1al politics and unitary form of administration for India, Mill promoted
separation of governmental powers; Mill, in short, created a Benthamite political legacy based on political liberalism
and laissez-faire economy in dealing with Indian affairs.30 Majeed also interprets Mill's History in the context of
Utilitarian politics. In his Ungoverned Imaginings, Majeed, on behalf of James Mill, describes the History as a mirror
in which English society is reflected as problematic for the Utilitarians. While this study agrees with the importance
of Benthamite Utilitarianism in Mill's thought on Indian society, it will, nevertheless, argue that the Scottish
Enlightenment plays an equally decisive role in shaping Mill's History.

The theory of semi-barbarism helped Mill to reject the cultural ideology of Hindu superiority over Muslim societies.
Lastly, this paper argues that Mill's History was influenced by and sought to accommodate Benthamite Utilitarianism.
Mill believed the supposed semi-barbarous and problematic native of Indian society could be reformed without
following the steps taken by European history or institutions.It is true that when Mill worked in East India House, he
was full of Benthamite reform projects. But when his History was composed, his view of civilisation and history was
far beyond Benthamite Utilitarianism.

If a student, like Stokes, understands Mill's view of India merely from the viewpoint of Utilitarianism, he would find
Mill a theorist and activist ex nihilo in British politics, neglecting the significance of Mill's education and his thirty
years in Scotland. While Mill's History customarily set in the context of the radical Utilitarian movement, some
historians of civic humanism recognise the importance of the Scottish Enlightenment in shaping Mill's views of politics
and society. John Burrow and Donald Winch ask how the ideologies of civic humanism of the eighteenth century were
replaced by or transformed into the Utilitarian discourses of the nineteenth. To be more specific, Burrov and Winch
try to determine how philosophical Whigs in the North interacted with philosophical radicals from the South, and how
the political concerns of the eighteenth century were gradually taken over by the concerns with problems of society in
the nineteenth century. In this intellectual movement, according to Burrow and Winch, Mill had his distinct role. Their
discussions of Mill's History, unfortunately, do not move beyond the parameters set by Du can Forbes; the History is
still considered as a marginal text in the intellectual movement

The context of the four stages theory

In eighteenth-century Scotland, many writers held two distinct but complementary views on the nature of historical
change. One was the four stages theory, the other the idea of progress. As the late Professor Ronald Meek observed,
IJCRT1133180 International Journal of Creative Research Thoughts (IJCRT) www.ijcrt.org 898
www.ijcrt.org © 2017 IJCRT | Volume 5, Issue 4 Nov 2017 | ISSN: 2320-2882

since the 1750s, many Scots literati had perceived the evolution of human institutions in terms of qualitatively distinct
stages of progress. With slight modification or variation, Lord Kames, John Dalrymple (1726-1810), William
Robertson, Adam Smith and John Millar (1735-1801), generally agreed that human institutions evolved around modes
of subsistence: from hunting or fishing societies to those which are pastoral, farming and commercial. This view of the
development of civilisation is commonly called by modem scholars the four stages theory. Meek was particularly
concerned with the methodological adequacy of the theory and its significance as a proto-Marxist theory of historical
materialism.There was an orthodox four stages theory of society, the stages being: hunting; pasturage; agriculture;
and commerce.

He compared the Scots' four stages theory with that of Turgot, Quesnay and some other French writers, and
consciously identified Marx as their successor. Mill was immensely saturated in the Scottish tradition of philosophical
history, but his seminal and problematic point in the History of British India was to demonstrate how to set up clear
and distinct criteria to pin down every society on the scale of civilisation, for he was gravely concerned with reform-
both in India and England.China or India were often regarded by eighteenth-century British writers as exceptions to
many of the rules of social progress that they tried to make. For instance, Hume suggested a country which had a good
foreign trade would give rise to domestic industry. Even if foreign trade later declined, the nation would remain
powerful and opulent. Through the mechanism of commerce and exchange, the whole population in the country would
enjoy home commodities. Hume argued that China was an opulent country, 'though it has very little commerce beyond
its own territories’. Exceptions were present because dependence told them so. But the nineteenth-century writers knew
more about China and India. They knew that China was not as tranquil as Montesquieu's or Voltaire's generation had
thought it to be; it was frequently subject to rebellions and coups d'etat throughout its history. They also knew that
China and India were not as opulent as the literati thought.

Timeline – “History of British India”

Mill’s interpretation of French thought reflects the new role that philosophy of history is going to have in his outline
of the new social and political sciences. I will illustrate this claim by analysing mainly the impact of SaintSimon and
Auguste Comte on Mill’s point of views. Some French historiographers, like François Mignet, Jacques-Antoine
Dulaure, Jean de Sismondi, Jules Michelet and François Guizot, deserve some attention, though brief in this article,
since they also influence his renewed interest in history.

In 1820 Mill first visits France, where he “breathed [...] the free and genial atmosphere of Continental life” (CW I,
59).From that moment on, as observer and admirer, French literature captures the interest of the young Mill. In the
1826 reviews of the works by Mignet, Dulaure and Sismondi, he indirectly conveys an ideal image of a professional
historian. Mill, who criticisesDulaure because he “does not look out for causes and effects” (CW XX, 51), praises
Mignet as an example of a historian who combines “philosophical history” with “mere narrative” (CW XX, 3). In a
preliminary form, Mill gives an account of the task of history that will characterise his later writings.

Mill’s Views on historical progress

Progress appears as a two-stage process: primarily, it takes place in a natural state when a society “moves onward”
insofar as it does no collide with “the established order of things”. At a further step, whenever a transitional stage is

IJCRT1133180 International Journal of Creative Research Thoughts (IJCRT) www.ijcrt.org 899

www.ijcrt.org © 2017 IJCRT | Volume 5, Issue 4 Nov 2017 | ISSN: 2320-2882

left behind, society “resumes its onward progress, at the point where it was stopped before by the social system which
it has shivered” (CW XXII, 252). According to this theory, the progress of society never stops. More significantly, an
exhaustive enquiry into the past allows him to establish a pattern to predict the future, since natural periods are always
followed by transitional periods. Even if Mill leaves a series of unfinished articles which he finds “lumbering in style”
(CW I, 181), the idea will play a prominent role in his System of Logic. Although finally published in 1843, as early
as in 1831 Mill is elaborating that part of the argument (CW I, 167; CW XII, 79). During the meantime, between 1830
and 1842, the six volumes of the Cours de Philosophie Positive appear. Mill admits that he “gained much from Comte,”
yet it is the Inverse Deductive Method what strikes him “as the one chiefly applicable to the complicated subjects of
History and Statistics” (CW I, 219). After his reading of the Cours’ last volume, Mill writes to the French philosopher
that the Logic had to be revised (CW XIII, 561). Moreover, John Robson suggests that the chapters where Mill explains
the Inverse Deductive Method are additions resulting from their agreement (Robson 1974, lxxvi; Bain 1882, 72, 68).
Indeed, Mill’s main borrowing from Comte (CW I, 219) provides him with a double strategy. By arguing for a
methodology that enables a scientific study of society, he establishes a direct link between the unfolding of history and
political science, that is, between the past and the future. The Inverse Deductive Method, also called Historical Method,
is “crucial to an understanding of his social philosophy” (Robson 1968, 150), since it is the key to the science of society
or sociology. It aims at giving a rational account of historical change, that is, “the progressiveness of the human race”
(CW VIII, 914). Historical facts, once analysed, unveil the “law of progress” which “enable[s] us to predict future
events” (CW VIII, 914). In other words, the Historical Method should describe “the laws according to which any state
of society produces the state which succeeds it and takes it place” (CW VIII, 912, 930).

Fortunately, this task “has become the aim of really scientific thinkers,” such as Comte (CW VIII, 930). Remarkably,
the idea of “state of society” underlies Mill’s scheme of sociology. Following Comte, he describes a state of society as
the “the state of civilization at any given time” (CW VIII, 911-2). Accordingly, an advance in people’s knowledge,
with its consequent shift in public opinion, brings about a transitional period, which, as Mill had previously argued,
leads to progress (CW, VIII, 926; Rosen 2007, 138). For Mill, progress and historical change are equivalent. More
accurately, “Philosophy of History is generally admitted to be at once the verification, and the initial form, of the
Philosophy of the Progress of Society” (CW VIII, 930). Thus, the crucial question remains whether progress means
general social improvement. Mill confidently asserts that “progress and progressiveness” are not synonymous with
“improvement and tendency to improvement” (CW, VIII, 913), or, to be precise, society is not bound to improve.
While rejecting historical determinism, he endorses the value of individual freedom. The progress of society, when it
takes place, results from mankind’s actions, which suggests that Mill’s later defence of liberty fits in with his theory
of history (Gibbins 1990, 101). Thus, every human action can be explained appealing to the state of society or the
“general circumstances of the country”, yet it also depends on “influences special to the individual” or free will (CW
VIII, 933)

Mill’s theory of international relations

James Mill, I will argue, developed a distinctive theory of international relations on the basis of his philosophy of
history. Triggered by events ‘generated by my Indian experience and others by the international questions which then
greatly occupied the European public’, Mill wrote A Few Words on Non-Intervention setting out ‘the true principles
of international morality’. His theory of international relations, as set out in A Few Words on Non-Intervention but
IJCRT1133180 International Journal of Creative Research Thoughts (IJCRT) www.ijcrt.org 900
www.ijcrt.org © 2017 IJCRT | Volume 5, Issue 4 Nov 2017 | ISSN: 2320-2882

also in Considerations on Representative Government is clearly a moral theory. Not only does the civilisational stage
of a people determine the most appropriate form of government, the government itself is an institution for moralising
and improving the people. For this reason, Mill argues that the government appropriate for a particular stage of
development is the one which enables the people to move on to the next stage. This moral task, this responsibility
towards the people is, however, not the final criterion, for ‘the influence of government’ he says, ‘on the well-being of
society can be considered or estimated in reference to nothing less than the whole of the interests of humanity’. It is
this universal principle – the whole of the interests of humanity – which determine the quality of any given government
as well as the criteria for ordering international affairs in general. The relations between sovereign states and
dependencies are also governed by the level of cultural development. Mill divides dependencies into two classes: one
is composed of people of similar civilisation as the mother country and fit for institutions of representative government,
such as British possessions in America and Australia; the other is composed of much less advanced people, such as
India. For the colonies of European race Mill argues for the widest possible measure of internal self-government.

There are some inequalities still in the system since Britain retains the powers of a Federal Government which means
that the former colonies have no sovereignty over their foreign policy and have to join Britain in war without being
consulted. Mill argues that the bonds between Britain and the settler colonies have to be severed if the settler colonies
desire this. However, these bonds are, in his opinion, very valuable because they can be considered a step ‘towards
universal peace, and general friendly co-operation among nations’. On the one hand, it makes war between the
members of the Commonwealth impossible, on the other, it prevents any member being incorporated into a foreign
state as well as from becoming an aggressive power in their own right. Furthermore, these bonds provide an open
market at least for its members and the connection adds weight to the moral influence of Great Britain in the councils
of the world, that is, to the ‘Power which, of all in existence, best understands liberty . . . and has attained to more of
conscience and moral principle in its dealings with foreigners, than any other great nation seems either to conceive as
possible, or recognise as desirable’

Imperialism and it's impact on political theory

Mill’s philosophy of history underlying both his political and his internationaltheory, however, is itself rooted in the
experience and practice of colonialism. Milldevelops the unequal political relationship between colonial power and
colonized population into a general philosophy of history which underlies, in turn, hisinternational and political theory.
He shares with other Enlightenment authors theassumption of cultural development for all of humankind and the
ranking of existingas well as extinct societies on a scale of civilisation49 – a literature with which he waswell
acquainted.Such philosophies of history had, moreover, been used forcenturies to justify the exclusion of internal as
well as external ‘barbarians’ – that is,women, children, slaves, workers and non-European peoples who were not
deemedto have the necessary qualified reason to enjoy equal rights of liberty. Yet, there aretwo aspects which
distinguish his theory from those of his predecessors. Firstly, hedirectly links different stages of development to
different forms of government.Consequently, secondly, the principle of liberty is for Mill not universal but onlyvalid
for modern civilisation.Subsequently, with his father’s help, James Mill himself is employed at IndiaHouse and spends
the next 35 years, until the abolition of East India Company rule,with the administration of the government of India.
He reports in his Autobiographythat working at India House added a good sense of the difficulties of practical politicsto
his training as a speculative writer.56 And this work, as Sullivan demonstrated, strongly influenced Mill’s
IJCRT1133180 International Journal of Creative Research Thoughts (IJCRT) www.ijcrt.org 901