Role of the philosophers in the French Revolution of 1789

The outbreak of the French Revolution of 1789 was the cumulative result of the variety of factors, of which the enlightenment or awakening brought about by a group of intellectuals or philosophers among the various sections in the French society regarding the degenerate conditions of the time -- political, social, economic, religious and moral-- was an important factor.

The administration in France was far from satisfactory. Various administrative units possessed ill-defined and over-lapping jurisdictions. The French government was arbitrary at all.The Emperor was liable to do whatever he liked and the people were bound to obey him whether he was right or wrong. He paid no attention to the sufferings of the subjects. Different laws prevailed in different parts of the country, and as Prof. Hayes opines, "What was lawful in one town might be illegal in a place not far away."

The French society also possessed too much of inequality. The society was formed of three groups. The First Estate, comprising of the clergymen, was a privileged class. This estate performed the spiritual services. The Church was supposed to be the guardian of the souls of the people. The condition of the lower clergy was highly miserable and was neglected and exploited by the higher clergy, whose life was full of luxury and comforts. The Second Estate was also a privileged class and was formed of the Nobility. The Third Estate was the unprivileged class and all those who were neither the clergymen nor the nobles, came in this class. Generally it was formed of the bourgeoisie, artisans and the peasantry.

The French finances were in a deplorable state of affairs. Owing to the series of expensive wars, the French finances were completely upset and the financial bankruptcy was on its peak. As the clergymen and the nobles were exempted from taxation, the burden of taxation fell on the Third Estate, and whatever the State earned was highly spent on the royal family.

Such was the state of affairs when the philosophers and the writers influenced the depressed masses of France with the might of their intellect. 

Montesquieu, a member of the nobility of robe, an eminent lawyer and a judge of the Parlement of Bordeaux, started a philosophic movement and "revealed the batteries of criticism and satire" which were to strike at the foundation of the ancien Regime in France. He supported the constitutional monarchy like that in England. He believed in the supremacy of law. He wanted all the three powers to be put into different organs, because "liberty is impossible without the separation of powers." The combination of any two or all the three powers in one organ resulted in tyranny. L' Spirit des lois, published in 1748 A.D., was a study in political philosophy, an analysis of the various forms of Government known to men, a cold and balanced judgement of their various characteristics, merits and demerits.

Voltaire proved himself an accomplished poet, historian, dramatist and even scientist. His power of spirit was seen in everything he wrote. He deeply hated the Old Regime. He had been thrown into prison many times by the odious and arbitrary lettres de' cachet. The main target of his attack was the superstitious church. He considered it the storage of superstitions, the enemy of free thinking, the persecutor of innocent persons who differed from it, and the supporter of narrow and bigoted prejudices. He stood for religious toleration. His views were, "Since we are all steeped in error and folly, we must forgive each other for our follies." He was not an atheist. He used to say, "If God did not exist, it would be necessary to create Him. He was not a political thinker in general. As an institution, he was satisfied with monarchy. His ideal of government was a benevolent despotism, but not democracy. He used to say, "I would prefer to be ruled by one lion than by a hundred rats."

Rousseau opened up the springs of emotion. He wished for the total reorganization of the society. The reason was that the present system had become too tolerable to render liberty. He was not in favour of the historical studies and did not care for knowledge. He felt that studies, art and knowledge degraded one.

In his fundamental thesis, he declared that man, naturally good and just and happy, had been corrupted and degraded by the very thing he called civilization. So he appealed to the people, "Sweep away, therefore, all the false fabric of society, the world of ugly want and insolent riches miscalled civilization, the oppression miscalled order, the error miscalled knowledge. Level its inequalities, repudiate its learning, break its function, shatter its chains. Let men return to the simplicity of ancient days, to the idyllic state, when uncorrupted instinct only ruled them. .... Immortal and celestial voices, of reasons, seek the high paths of felicity of life." He awakened the people telling them that all the concessions and privileges in the society were reserved for the First and Second Estates only. "They get lucrative employments, and if they murder anybody, no action is taken against them, while the unprivileged is given harsh punishment even for a minor fault."

The Social Contract summarizes his ideal on social and political organization. He proposed the idea of the sovereignty of the people. "Man is born free and yet everywhere he is in chains." As the sovereignty rested with the people, no Government had the power to seize it from them and people had the full right to revolt against the Government. He was not in favour of the representative form of Government and demanded that people should directly make the laws themselves.

The course of the revolution was influenced by his two forthcoming principles --- the sovereignty of the people and the political equality of all the citizens.

Rousseau's political influence progressed not only in France or Europe, but in various parts of the world.Lord Morley praised him, "He spoke words that can never be unspoken, and kindled a hope that can never be extinguished."

Despite this three joint of philosophers, there were still a number of intellectuals. Though of small stature, they influenced the thoughts of the people with their writings and powerfully contributed to the destruction of the Old Regime. Diderot, the Editor of the Encyclopedia, to which many writers contributed, desired for the improvement of mankind.

The Physiocrats also played an important part in the economic sphere. Adam Smith, Mirabeau, Say, Quesnay and Turgot were the chief representatives in this field. They attacked the prevailing mercantile system with its insistence on State control of trade and commerce. Their slogan was laissez faire. They wanted complete free trade and wanted all taxes to be reduced to a single land tax. Mirabeau remarked that those principles were sufficient to "set everything right and renew the age of Solomon." As the Controller General of Finance, Turgot also attempted to establish freedom of trade within and beyond France.

The other intellectuals known only to the name of history are Beaumarchais, Helvetius, Holbach, the Abbe de Raynal, and the socialist publicist Abbe de Mably.

There is a great controversy regarding the contribution of philosophers towards the revolution. A group of writers refuse to believe that among the philosophers and intellectuals lies the real cause of the revolution and insist on believing that the philosophers have only the secondary role in it. Such historians, however, ignore the fact that how without dignified leadership and illuminating thought provoking ideas, any movement could have risen much less a revolution in France.

Further, a question which is often raised 'why there was revolution only in France and not in any other country of Europe', signifies the fact that the grievances in the world of Europe were of similar nature. There was not any sort of enlightenment anywhere except France and that is a reason why the revolution broke out in France only.

Cambridge History (Vol. XI) states, "The ideas had been there even before the Encyclopedia was published and before Rousseau and Montesquieu gave their logic to the masses." In the words of Prof. Hazen, the writers did not cause the revolution, still they were the factor instilling and infusing the new ideas by their criticism and comparisons, agreements and logic which made the French public understand their despicable position. The principal features of the revolution were engraved on the lips of the French people. These were Equality, Liberty and Fraternity, the ideas which every nation desire, which every human loves, and which nobody achieves, and up to this time nothing as such could had been achieved. In the psychology of the greatest philosopher of the modern times, B. Russell, "Tear a plant, cut it and it would still grow more." The more the people were being crushed, the more desire to spare themselves from the evils grew and there were born the writers, poets, thinkers and philosophers with new ideas, new outlook, new passion, which were to work for a time; the social evils and the diseases which otherwise were incurable.

The Fourth Estate also played a significant role in the propagation of new ideas. The publication of new journals from Paris ---Journal de' Paris and Journal de' Politique --- lit the flames in the hearts of the suppressed and depressed and impressed them. In 1763 A.D., Rousseau published his concern over the gravity of the french situation. In 1764 A.D., Diderot in one of his plays, indirectly helped imposing the so-called Revolution and the free distributing of Quesnay's pamphlets made the situation from bad to worse. The three joints of the French revolution --- Montesquieu, Voltaire and Rousseau--- appeared on the scene. For Rousseau, it has been confirmed, "But for Rousseau, there could have been no revolution." The phrase of  Carlyle can never be missed, "Though Rousseau, practically an idealist, caused discontent, thesis no revolution; it was he who led the revolutionary era through the proper channel, and guided the palm who held it in great difficulty and who spoilt it with sufficient zeal." On firm foundations, Rousseau proved that Equality, Liberty and Fraternity were not just the maxims on paper, they are to be practised and implemented.

The ambers of the revolutionary data that had been secretly smouldering was burst into an open obligation when the philosophers dominated the french State. It were they who instigated and inspired the few who led, who provided them with logical logic, who watered them with the happy future and always warning them that if they left the field, they would be no more either in body or in spirit.The Revolution had, thus, its work in the seeds sown by the philosophers and these seeds fortunately fell upon fruitful soil. Hence the philosophers had happy dreams with a new vigour, new vitality, new emotions, new aspirations, as if they were championing the cause of the oppressed and the depressed, dejected and rejected, the people of France, nay of the world.

Civil Works of Napoleon Bonaparte

Napoleon Bonaparte is one of the most remarkable figures in the history of Europe. Despite being a great conqueror of his time and creating terror in the continent, he also carried out a number of reforms and lay down a very sound administration in France and proved himself a very efficient administrator. He carried out his civil works and established law and order in France after it had seen many years of anarchy and confusion. That is why H.A.L. Fisher says, “If Napoleon’s conquests were ephemeral, his civil work in France was built on granite.” Even Ludwig observes, “He strives for order and peace more resolutely than for war and conquest.”

He carried out his works in all spheres --- political, financial, religious, social, cultural etc. so successfully that his name still lives in France.

Centralized Local Government: The National Assembly in France had framed the local administrative system on the electoral basis. But Napoleon was not satisfied with this system.His system was, instead, based on the principles of centralization and autocracy, and resembled more to the Old Regime than to the Revolutionary. He had more of the spirit of Louis XIV. Grant & Temperley observe, “He desired in everything the establishment of a central authority --- which could only be his own authority --- which should direct or control every part of the life of France.”He placed the Departments and other smaller administrative units ---- arrondissements and communes ---- in the hands of prefects, sub-prefects and mayors. These officers were appointed directly or indirectly by Napoleon.

Napoleon knew that it was only through this system of Centralization that peace and order could be restored in France and an efficient administrative machinery could be framed. the system worked well, indeed, though it completely ignored the ideas of self-government.

Equality vs. Liberty: Napoleon had devoted himself to the reorganization of France. According to him, “Bonaparte came to close the romance of revolution, to heal the wounds, to correct extravagances.” To establish efficiency in administration, he adopted many measures to bring social and economic equality. Equal social rights were provided to all. High posts were no more reserved only for the privileged classes, and merit was the only basis for selection. The officials had to remain faithful to the Emperor and obey his orders. Thus all the able and meritorious persons were offered an opportunity to rise. He also brought many important changes in the Taxation system. Equal taxes were imposed and there was no sign left in the indifference and inequality of taxes.According to A.J. Grant, “He never proposed to re-establish the system of financial privilege.” By making appointments on merit, he became very popular among his subjects, because no French ruler had ever taken steps in this direction so far.

However, he did not favour Liberty, because he considered it as an important factor for creating chaos and anarchy. Grant & Temperley observe, “He thought of liberty as a disturbing factor that prevented the efficiency of a State. There is no hint in anything that he said or wrote that he thought of it as the great force making for stability, order and efficiency.” Press and books were kept under censor-board. Even theatres were controlled by the Government.

Finances : The financial condition in France was deplorable under the rule of the ancien regime. The National Assembly took some steps to reform the French finances, but its reformatory measures added to its debts. The National Convention and the Directory had also not been successful to check the financial indebtedness. The economic settlement had failed all trade and industry in the country. Napoleon took very sound measures in this regard. First of all, he equated the taxation system in the country. Then he developed means of irrigation for the development of agriculture. New debt letters were replaced by the old ones. A separate treasure was established for the payment of the national debts. The Government made many arrangements for the technical education in the country. To popularize the national goods among the French, he increased the taxes on the imported goods.

The most significant work, which increased his honour in France, is the establishment of the Bank of France. It was a remarkable measure in the economic field. It was founded in 1800 A.D. Through this bank, he made many  attempts to revive the economy of France. Prof. Hayes is very right in his assumption when he considers as “one of the soundest financial institutions in the world.”

Crushing of Rebels and policy of conciliation : The Monarchists attempted to overthrow Napoleon and to reinstate monarchy in France. The Jacobins were seeking an opportunity to defend the Republic. But Napoleon had already made himself popular and won the public support by his extra-ordinary reforms and remarkable successes in the military front. He had raised the prestige of France in the entire world. He arrested his rivals and executed many of them. During the revolutionary days, the members of the privileged classes had to run away from France. Now he treated very sympathetically towards these emigrees and invited them to their native country. The offices were opened to all, including the royalists and the Girondists, provided they accepted the existing system.

Military Policy : Basically Napoleon was himself a soldier. Whatever he was and whatever he had achieved was all due to his military power. He introduced many changes in the military organization and made several reforms in order to defend his achievements and also France against the foreign invasions. He established a very powerful army with modern techniques and arms. He gave no opportunity to his Generals and soldiers to make any complaint. He served them with dresses, shoes and good food. Payments were made regularly. Thus this organization helped him to establish internal peace and order, conquer the foreign States and defend France against any invasion.

Napoleonic Codes : There existed a number of laws in France before Napoleon. Prof. Hayes says that the laws varied from one place in France to the other. To reconstruct France internally, his greatest achievement in this field was his Codes, which are considered as ‘a benefactor of mankind.’ During his days of exile in St. Helena, he once said that his Civil Code and not his victories in war, was his most real claim to fame. His Codes came into existence in 1804 and many of them form the law in France till this day. It gave to France a common system of law, which was at all clear, orderly and systematic. It also made justice more rapid, cheap and reliable. Besides, it established social equity in the eyes of law and secured religious toleration for all.

In all, there were five Codes of Napoleon --- Civil Code, Code of Civil Procedure, Code of Criminal Procedure and Penal Law, Penal Code, and the Commercial Code. The Codes passed through many stages before they became binding on France. He took an active part in revising the final draft of the Code. By his Civil Code, he stood for the absolute authority of father within the family. This Code even allowed the father to imprison his children. He was strongly in favour of the subjection of women. He used to say, “The angel told Eve to obey her husband.” It secured many of the victories that had been won by the Revolution. The Code of Criminal Procedure followed in many respects the English practice. Although the jury-system was severely criticized, Napoleon maintained it by his influence.

In the Penal Code, branding and confiscation of property was allowed as penalties.

Fisher concludes that although there are some defects, “the Codes preserve the essential conquests of the revolutionary spirit --- civil equality, religious toleration, the emancipation of land, public trial, the jury of judgment. ”

The Concordat : The Civil Constitution of Clergy (1790 A.D.) had divided the Church and the French people in their attitude towards the revolution. A large number of lower clergy had completely turned against it. It had made a considerable section of masses against it. Napoleon sought to win their gratitude by restoring the Roman-Catholic Church in France which had been the chief stumbling throne of the Revolution. In 1801 A.D., he made an agreement with the Pope, popularly known as the Concordat. He approved Catholicism as the greatest religion in France. The Church was returned its confiscated property. The bishops were now to be appointed by the State though nominated by the Pope. “The Pope could only reject his nominees on the ground of heresy or immorality, and, if there was no fault to be found with them on these points, was bound to grant canonical investiture.” The bishops had to take an oath of fidelity to the Government. Thus Catholicism was re-established in France, dependent on the State and satisfying the majority of the population.

Though Napoleon re-established the Catholic Church in France, its position was entirely different than in the pre-revolutionary France. To quote Napoleon, “The people must have a religion and the religion must be in the hands of the Government.” The object of his religious policy in the words of Ketelby is, “Religion was to him only a useful political instrument, a national imaginative focus, a social cement, a safety valve.”

Educational system : Napoleon introduced a number of reforms in the educational field as well. ‘Education is very essential for the development of a nation’, were his views. There were to be schools of four categories : primary, secondary, military training (lycees), and technical training. There was to be the Imperial University at the head of all the centres. There was to be one University for all France, and it was intended to bring the whole educational system of France under the control of the University. To be a Graduate was an essential qualification to teach.

The Institut de France was established in 1795 A.D. for higher studies and research. Napoleon was satisfied with its works in physical science, fine arts, mathematics and literature. He disliked the study of moral and political sciences, and suppressed these departments by one his Decree of January 23, 1803.

His object in the educational field, like in religion, was also to fulfill his self-interests. He, however, did not succeed in his educational mission, because of the lack of wealth and experienced teachers. Moreover, his much attention to the military and political exigencies also prevented him to fulfill his desires in this field.

Legion of Honour : In 1802 A.D., Napoleon established an institution, Legion of Honour. It was established because “the French are accessible to only one sentiment --- love of honour.” This honour was confined on those persons who, according to Napoleon, had done something extra-ordinary either in civil or in military spheres. In the beginning, it was criticized very much, but soon its members got very respectable position in the French society. Even today, this system works in France and is a very significant and important institution.

Works of Public Welfare : Napoleon inaugurated a vast series of public works. Roads were projected and many were taken under construction. Canals were cut. Agriculture was improved by the introduction of modern scientific methods; industry was developed in France. Gas was introduced for illuminant. Trees were grown on both sides of the roads. These works also helped the improvement of finances in France. To quote Grant & Temperley, “The general condition of France until the Empire touched its period of ruin, showed an air of prosperity in all classes.”

David Thompson observes that between 1800 and 1803 A.D., Napoleon as First Consul devoted himself mainly to the interval reorganization of France. “It was in this period that his most constructively valuable work was done. He brought to the task of reorganization the qualities of swift decision and action, the same precision and concentration upon essentials which had already brought him success in war. The spirit behind the great reforms of the Consulate at home was the transference of the methods of Bonaparte the general to the tasks of Bonaparte the statesman. And, as in war, he was able to enlist in his service a brand of men imbued with the same spirit and devoted to the same ends.” Fisher confirms the above contention as he says, “Napoleon’s reforms in the domain of law, education, finance, religion and local administration certainly proved more solid and more enduring as compared to his military conquests. He established many many enduring and everlasting institutions in France. He consolidated his country and at the same time preserved certain fruits of revolution. He had displayed his marvellous quality as an organizer and talented administrator.”

Continetal System of Napoleon Bonaparte

Continental System was a political fight of Napoleon through economic means to ruin his obstinate enemy, England. After the treaty of Tilsit (1807), Napoleon became the paramount master of the entire continent. However, there was one hindrance in his way to the supremacy which blocked his path and that was the Navy.   Napoleon was aware of his weakness in the Naval Front, and, therefore, followed the continental system, which the historians have termed as the court of last throw of political gamble, compelled by the exigencies of the game to risk all or fail correspondingly. Napoleon having lost his Navy to Nelson had never tried to rebuild it to match the British strength. He thought that there was one weak point in the British industry and commerce, and if he attacked it, he would be able to bring the British on their knees. What he was required to do was to put an end to the monopoly of the British goods in the Continent. The cheap markets of the British goods promoted it, but once the British trade and commerce was lost, the British prosperity was to go to loss. This, in his opinion, was the best method of teaching a lesson to the ‘nation of shopkeepers’, as he called the British.

In Napoleon’s opinion, France was a self-sufficient country. Through his commercial codes, he organised his trade and commerce and made it prosperous and profitable. He knew that Britain was a manufacturing country. They sold their surplus goods outside their country, and thus earned huge profits and foreign exchange. Being prevented from carrying on this trade outside the country, she would no more have supply of cash and would go bankrupt. Her financial tendency would not then permit her to pay for the continuance of war and hence would submit to the French.

Napoleon felt that the ruin of the British overseas trade would result in her ruin of industry. The British manufacturers, due to the lack of customers, would draw the shutters of godowns and factories. Thousands of workers would be thrown out of work and prevail starvation. Commercial classes would raise in revolt and would put terrific pressure on the government to make peace with Napoleon. In the words of Prof. Hayes, “During the period 1806 to 1812, the struggle between Napoleon and Great Britain was an economic endurance test. On the one hand the question was whether British government could retain the support of the British people. On the other hand, the question was whether Napoleon could rely upon the co-operation of the whole continent.”

After having thought the problem, Napoleon resolved and embarked upon his plan of conquering England. The adopted policy of Continental Blockade, which the Convention and the Directory had started, gave it the real shape and forced more. In 1806 A.D., when he had his deserving victories at Moringo, Austerlitz and Jena, he considered himself the master of Europe and was in a position to enforce the Economic Blockade. He, therefore, used his weapon unflinchingly without changing his mind. He came out in November 1806 with the intention in this connection, for the first time, openly by issuing what are known as the Berlin Decrees. Through these Decrees, he out rightly came out with what had been going on so far in his mind. He declared England to be the enemy of the European continent and expressed his intention unequivocally to fight and defeat the obstinate British, who had nothing but contempt for Europe and its people. These islanders (i.e. the British) had never considered themselves, in his opinion, the members of the same European family. He told the European nations that time had come to pay them back with the same contempt as the British had shown them. Till then, Napoleon in this way wanted to arouse the feelings of the Europeans against his enemy to get their whole-heart co-operation in this great and earnest endeavour to defeat the British. It was a good plan and he could succeed if the Continental Blockade had not lingered on. Had it been a short affair, it would have succeeded. Unfortunately for Napoleon, the British had a reply for the Continental Blockade and it was this answer from which Napoleon’s scheme of  conquering England came to grief.

Though the continental blockade of England had been done by the National Convention and the Directory, but with no success. Now it was Napoleon;s turn to give it a definite shape. The Berlin Decree, the first in the series, was issued on November 18, 1806. It was compared to a thunder-bolt. He declared that the whole of the British isles, i.e. England, Scotland, Ireland and the Wales, was to be in the state of blockade. He miscalculated the usefulness of the French Navy to enforce the blockade on the superior British Naval Fleet. That is why the historians have called it the most fictitious blockade ever ordered in history. He prohibited all commerce with British ports, wholly or partially of British origin, and declared them liable to seizure. This was the most outrageous violation of the neutral rights under International Law, which had been perpetuated by Napoleon. The Cambridge Modern History has summed it up in the following words, “It is no exaggeration to say that the Berlin Decree of 18th November, 1806 was the climax to which Napoleon’s policy had so long been working for.” How strict Napoleon wanted to be to the blockade can be found in a letter written to General Juno in which he stated that the wives of his chief officers and Generals should also avoid using English goods, because they were the people who were to set an example for others. “Let them take care also,” wrote Napoleon, “that no part of their dress is composed of English merchandise. ....... It is a contest of life and death between France and England. I must look for the most cordial times in those homes I am surrounded.” To the Berlin Decrees, England’s most useful weapon lay, as according to Ramsay Muir, “ She could damage Napoleon in the eyes of the subjects by making them realise that his commercial war was cutting them off by necessary supplies and was a victim upon grievous harshes.”

An Order in Council was issued in January 1807, which pointed out that England had prohibited all trade with France. Again, the Orders were issued in which England made concessions to Denmark and Russia by making its goods available for sale in those countries. In November 1807, England imposed blockade of all European ports and thus brought to an end the neutral trade. It made the neutrals miserable as they were now between the devil and the deep sea. It made, in fact, impossible for them to be strictly neutral. At the same time, the British relaxed the navigation and offered substantial concessions to non-neutrals and thus encouraged the neutral countries openly to come out for trade with Great Britain instead of France.

Realising a setback and a dent in his Continental System, Napoleon again issued decrees from Warsaw, whereby he ordered the confiscation of the British goods and prohibited the possession of the British goods by any trader or householder. Again, he issued from Milan his decrees. In this Decree, he declared that any neutral vassal was liable to seizure. This was done to encounter the British orders. In 1809, Britain modified her policy by limiting her blockade to the coasts of Holland, France and Italy, thus leaving the trade open with Spain, Portugal, Hungary and Politic lands. Napoleon, on the other hand, stiffened his policy. He had realised that his vassals were not carrying on his policy on a large scale. So by the Tariff Decrees of August 5, 1810, he imposed duties amounting to 15% average on Principal Colonial Prospects. On the same time, by the Decree of Fountainbleau, issued in 1810, Napoleon ordained the seizure and destruction of Britain manufacturing goods and set up a special tribunal to enforce this order. “These monster inactments brought ruin and suffering wherever they were applied and nothing did more to Napoleon’s subjects than the spectacle of the wanted destruction of grave stones of desperately needed supplies.”

Such were the measures of attack and reprisals by means of which Napoleon carried on his commercial war for years together. In the opinion of Marriott, “Between the Decrees launched by Napoleon and the British reprisals, there was this essential difference -- Great Britain had the power of enforcing them effectively, Napoleon had not. Britain was the mistress of seas and it ruled the waves. She could cut off the trade of France and her allies from the rest of the world.”

Despite all this and the early realisation for the success of Continental System, it was essential that he had the support of every European country, more essentially that with Naval Power, he would survive off the aggression upon the countries in the European Continent. He was reluctant in resolving the deadlock, resulting to the costly wars. Prof. Trevelyan writes, “England’s resistance unexpectedly continued and drew Napoleon on into more and more dangerous schemes of Spain and Russia into ever stricter prohibition against trade. It seemed that he must conquer and starve the whole world in order to starve and conquer the islanders i.e. British.”

The Tsar of Russia had promised Napoleon at Tilsit in 1807 that he would not allow the British ships and her goods to enter any of the Russian ports. Austria and Prussia had been severely crushed by Napoleon that they had to enforce his policy willy-nilly in their dominions. Sweden was still in alliance with England and in 1808, Napoleon declared war against her and forced her to close all Scandinavians to England. Napoleon’s brother, Louis Bonaparte, was made the master of Holland, but he could not enforce the blockade. Consequently, Louis was forced to abdicate and Holland was annexed into France. Napoleon also captured North Coast. His empire included the Grand Duchy of Warsaw and the Duchy of Westphalia, and also forced the system on Cis Alpine, Naples, Tuscany etc. His negotiations with the Pope brought him in conflict with the Papal States, which were captured and the Pope was put in the prison. This completely made him the enemy of all the Christian States, who would not forgive him for the insult inflicted on the Pope.

Portugal, the old friend of Britain, was also antagonised and this gave the British an opportunity to create trouble for Napoleon during the Peninsular War. Thus it was all suicidal for Napoleon during to enforce the Continental System on the unwilling nations of Europe. It failed right from the beginning and did fail ultimately because it lacked the sympathy and co-operation of the people of Europe. His policy of starving the world in order to starve Great Britain was also a negative one, which brought nothing but miseries, sufferings, trials and timulations for the people of Europe and people of France and ultimately led to his downfall. Napoleon had matured earlier and probably he had grown old earlier as well. It is said that after forty, he was not the same Napoleon. His knack of doing right things at the right time had left him in forty, hence his downfall.

Annexation of Lahore by Ranjit Singh

When Ranjit Singh succeeded to the leadership of  Sukerchakia Misl in 1790 A.D., Lahore was being ruled by the weak Bhangi trio. In 1765 A.D., a Bhangi-Kanheya combination had expelled Kabuli Mal, the rapacious governor under Durrani. The new masters of Lahore ransacked it indiscriminately, dividing the spoils among themselves. The city itself was divided among the three Bhangi Sardars. The Sukerchakia chief at that time, Charat Singh, captured the famous canon, Zamzama, and retired to his headquarter at Gujranwala. Thus the Bhangi chiefs became too engrossed in their debaucheries and too jealous of each other to offer a united resistance to any of their rivals.

Another peculiar favourable circumstance which helped Ranjit Singh in the conquest of Lahore was the revived ambitions of the Durrani Emperor. In 1793, Shah Zaman succeeded to the throne of Kabul and decided to recover Punjab from the Sikhs. To achieve his mission, he sent approximately 7,000 horsemen under his General, Ahmed Khan Shahanchi, from Hasan Abdal. However, the Afghans were routed by the Sikhs. Two years later, Shah Zaman again appeared at Peshawar and took possession of the fortress of Rohtas, but had to hasten back to Kabul on hearing the news of the Persian invasion.

In 1796-97, Shah Zaman was urged by the hard-pressed Rohilla chief, Ghulam Mohammad, and Nawab Asif-ud-Daula of Oudh to invade India.In November 1796, the Shah marched at the head of 30,000 men and reached unhindered the precincts of Lahore. He even set up his camp on the banks of Ravi. The Bhangi chiefs left the town in hurry and Shah Zaman occupied Lahore on January 3, 1797. Shah’s stay at Lahore, however, proved to be a short one, as the news of the rebellion of his brother, Shah Mahmood, hastened his departure.

As yet,  Shah Zaman’s invasion had failed to dislodge the Sikh confederacy from their established position. The Bhangi chiefs, Lehna Singh and Sobha Singh, came out of their hidings and re-occupied Lahore. While the Durrani invasion convulsed the centre of the Punjab, Ranjit Singh had realized inability of the Bhangis to hold it permanently against the onslaughts of the Afghans. Lahore represented the symbol of prestige and power to any master of the Punjab. It commanded sub-mountainous region in the North-West, the hilly tracts in the North-East, the Doab in the center and the barren land in the South including Multan, Bahawalpur and Sind. To wrest it from the Bhangis was the main ambition of Ranjit Singh.

On October 25, 1798, Shah Zaman left Peshawar and advanced on Lahore. A Sukerchakia-Bhangi coalition attempted to hem in the Afghan army and Zaman, however, occupied Lahore. During the siege Ranjit Singh, in spirit of his youthful bravado, challenged the Shah from the Samman burj. The Bhangi chiefs, as usual, retired to the hills. Shah Zaman stayed at Lahore for about four months, but had to return once again because of the rebellion of Shah Mahmud. He left his Indian possessions under the control of Shahanchi Khan, who was later defeated by the combined forces of Ranjit Singh and others. With the dispersal of the Afghan forces, all semblance of Afghan authority between Ravi and Jhelum was obliterated.

The brave effort that Ranjit made against the Afghan chief, had impressed the citizens of Lahore, who were fed up with the oppression of the Bhangis. They approached Ranjit Singh to liberate them from the Bhangis. On 4th July, 1799, he led an army of 25,000 soldiers and invaded Lahore. On 6th July, the guards threw open the gates of the citadel and the next day the fort was occupied. The Bhangis, however, were left unmolested. 

“The occupation of Lahore,” as Bikramjit Hasrat remarks, “by the youthful Sukerchakia chief in July 1799 is a landmark in the history of the Sikhs. It laid the foundation of sovereign Sikh monarchy in Punjab.” The conquest of Lahore, in the words of G.L. Chopra, “was an important addition to Ranjit’s possession, and greatly enhanced his political prestige as the holder of the traditional capital of Punjab.”

Writers like Princep and Lepel Griffin allege that Lahore was bestowed upon Ranjit Singh for his service rendered to the Afghan ruler for the return of 15 canons which were lost  in the Jhelum while the latter was on his way back to Kabul. Shah Zaman, pleased on the act of Ranjit Singh presented the Khillat to the Sikh chief. Dr. N.K. Sinha, however,  refutes this allegation and justifies his full claim. 

No doubt, that Ranjit Singh dug out and delivered to Shah Zaman’s Vakil 15 pieces of canon and got in return a rich Khillat from Shah. But at the same time, Shah had not relinquished his design on Hindustan and was anxious to conciliate Ranjit Singh, whose position in the Punjab is best described in the words of British Resident with Daulat Rao Scindhia, “Zaman Shah is endeavouring to attach to his interest Ranjit Singh, the usurper of Lahore who has lately received Khillat from the Durrani Prince..... The Sikh chief possesses considerable influence in Punjab and seems ambitious of acquiring still greater authority which he hopes of attaining by means  of  a close connection...”

Ranjit Singh became the master of Lahore on 6th July,1799, while Shah Zaman returned from that city on 4th January of the same year. But Dr. Sinha asserts that the Durrani grant could not have helped him to conquer the capital of  Punjab which he took on 6th July, 1799 while the Khillat was most probably conferred in March of the following year, when 15 pieces of  canon were delivered. Dr. Sinha’s argument is based on the British Record of April 1800, according to which “Ranjit has lately delivered to Shah Zaman’s Vakil 15 pieces of canon which Durrani prince had lost last year in retreat....”

At this stage of his career Ranjit Singh was not so strong as to refuse the Durrani support, dubious though it certainly was. Keeping in line with this, Dr. N.K. Sinha remarks, “Each wanted to make use of other to serve his own interest and the submissive attitude of the one and the conciliatory attitude of the other must be regarded as mere diplomatic camouflage to hide the real objective for which they were striving.”

Conclusively, the arguments advanced by Dr. Sinha with the help of dates disprove the theory that Ranjit Singh secured Lahore as a gift from Shah Zaman.

Factors Responsible for the downfall of Napoleon Bonaparte

Napoleon Bonaparte was the greatest military general of his times. No doubt, in 1807-08 he was at the height of his power. But soon after, his downfall started. It is a general observation that the year 1807 marks the zenith of his power. Further they observe, “Had he died in that year, his career would have seemed the most miraculous in the military annals of Europe and perhaps of the world...... The French Revolution was left far behind now. It was no France but Napoleon who commanded in Europe. And he had carried with him his family to wealth and fame and power.”

Here the question comes to mind that under what circumstances did the decline of Napoleon begin? No doubt, his decline was not affected by any royal reasons, but was the cumulative result of a variety of factors.

When did Napoleon’s downfall start? It is a very good question for discussion. According to a military historian, it started sometime between Jena and Moscow.A naval historian will place it at Trafalgar. A political historian, looking at the balance of power in the continent, might find the turning point at Tilsit. A historian, who considered the Napoleonic era as a period of struggle between France and England to control the European and overseas trade, would prefer to take the moment when the challenge was thrown down and taken up at the breach of the Peace of Amiens. A Frenchman asking himself at what point did Bonaparte cease to have the blessings of the Revolution and began to return to the practises of the Bourbon regime, might choose the moment when the First Consul crowned himself the Emperor of the French. These points of argument favour the year 1802 as the turning point; the year of the Treaty of Amiens, of the Concordat, and of the Consulship for life. Each was a climax, a settlement : of the war in Europe, of the crucial issue of the Revolution, of Bonaparte’s own rise to power. Each enclosed germs of decay; a treaty which was only a truce, a pacification which inaugurated a new struggle, the climbing of a mountain which revealed the true summit at least within reach. And as Thompson remarks, “If an exact moment is needed, let it then be that of the Elevation in the mass of Easter Day, April 18, 1802, when the material might of the Napoleonic republic did homage to the central circle of the Catholic faith.”

The chief most cause of his failure can be stated as Napoleon himself had observed, “It was the Spanish ulcer that ruined me.” Napoleon was determined on his part to exclude English goods from all over the European continent. For this purpose he interfered in the countries like Portugal and Spain. The Portuguese and the Spaniards got good support from the British navy. Hence in the Peninsular War, the French were badly beaten and driven away from the Peninsula. It very much reduced the prestige of Napoleon and the victories of the Duke of Wellington exploded the myth of Napoleon’s invincibility on land.

While the Peninsular War was on, Napoleon commanded a wing of his troops to Moscow in 1812 A.D., which is again regarded a great diplomatic blunder on his part. When the Tsar hesitated in implementing the Continental System on the soil of Russia, Napoleon led his army against the Russians. But the circumstances forced him to retreat from Moscow in a very helpless condition, which encouraged his enemies to join their hands and bring about his decline.

It is stated that the Continental System acted as a boomerang and destroyed its author. England was to Napoleon as his obstinate enemy. He wanted to beat England by adopting all possible measures.Therefore, he waged a commercial war against her and by issuing his famous decrees from Berlin, Warsaw, Milan and Fountainbleau he did all that he could do to deal a blow to the British trade and commerce. This system of his forced him to intervene in many countries. Although Napoleon failed in his real objective, yet he came across many difficulties. Hence his ultimate downfall.

Napoleon had given rise to militarism. No doubt, like other various supporters of militarism, Napoleon himself failed ultimately. Indeed, it was militarism by which he had risen to the peak of success, but later on he failed at all. In the beginning, he had recruited large armies and trained them very well, and with their support had defeated almost all the Great Powers of Europe one by one, with the exception of England. Later on, Napoleon had become very unpopular, because his constant wars had started taking heavy toll of human lives. Moreover, militarism had grown also in Russia, Prussia and Austria. At that time, the military forces of all the nations formed a coalition against Napoleon and defeated him. Also, later on, Napoleon had to recruit more and more forces from the Poles, Germans, Italians, Dutch, Spaniards and the Danes. With it, he lost the fighting effectiveness.

It is narrated that once Metternich asked Napoleon at Dresden to accept his terms and give peace to Europe. But Napoleon denied: “What do you wish me to do? Should I dishonour myself? Never..... I cannot, because I rose to power through the camp.” Then Metternich asked him what he would do when his army of conscripts had perished. Napoleon answered, “You are not a soldier. You do not know what happens in the heart of a soldier. I have grown up on battle-fields and a man such as I care little for the lives of a million men.” Such thinking of Napoleon was, of course, responsible for his fall.

According to Dr. Sloane, “The causes of his decline may be summed up in a single word, exhaustion.” However, Prof. Holland Rose and President Theirs differ from this theory. According to them, Napoleon’s activity, both before and after Waterloo, was that of a man in good health. It was his judgment and the decisions he took that proved fatal to him. His victories in successive battles in the beginning had made him proud and haughty. He did not listen to the advice of others. He refused to set his confidence even upon Fouche and the master planner, Talleyrand. He believed that he was the best brain and his decisions were also the best. No doubt, many a times his calculations became defective and ultimately ended in his fall.

Another important factor of his decline is attributed to the rise of a great strategist -- Gneisenau, and a great fighting general in Blucher. Napoleon, however, had a very poor opinion for both of them and it was also his contempt for his enemies that led to his disaster. It was his good fortune that in his early years he did not meet a general worthy of his steel.

There are still many other factors attributed to his downfall. He began to depend more and more on trickery and deceit. He had even stated many a times, “I know when to exchange the lion’s skin for that of a fox.” For his such actions, he lost his belief in the continent, and every State began to hate him. The Allies had no faith in him when he made declarations and pledges. They were determined to remove him for once and all.

He was also a stranger to the idea of compromise. So long as there was the least chance of success, he was never prepared to come to terms with the enemy. Till end, he believed that he would be able to take advantage of the military errors of his enemies. Had he decided to come to a compromise when his misfortunes started and not depended on treachery and deceit, he would have retained for himself the throne of France.

Apart from these, he lost the support of certain sections through whom he had come to power. With the passage of time, he shed off all his Jacobinism and became a great imperialist. His own relatives became ungrateful to him whom he had treated very kindly. They took pleasure in thwarting his will on the occasion of some great crisis.He tried to make his brothers eagles, but they remained ordinary fowls. Once Napoleon told Metternich, “My relatives have done more harm than I have done them good.”

Thus we find many factors responsible for his downfall. There was no single factor which can be said to have brought about his downfall. All these factors jointly played their part and ultimately Napoleon --- the Terror of Europe, diminished from the scene of European politics, but to this day remains present in the minds of the people. No doubt, the Spanish ulcer, retreat from Moscow, the rise of Gneisenau and Blucher, and above all his egoism were the chief most factors which stood responsible for his ultimate decline.

RSSS and the modern Congressmen

It has become a fashion with the Congressmen or are they a patient of any phobia that whatever happens against their wishes, they take no time to blame the RSSS. I don't know much about this organization than that it is a social one, which had worked a lot during the national movement, or any natural calamity. Moreover, it is a organisation which is based on Hindu culture and ideals and promote the same. It is a agony if its agenda does not fit the Congress why does its leaders cry and scream of RSSS. If the Congress is so tired of it and continue to blame it, why does it not put a ban on it. But mind the Congress leadership, Pt. Nehru himself had hailed many a times the activities of RSSS. One must be broad-minded. I don't appreciate many policies of RSSS, but what is good will remain good. It is not essential for anybody to take a certificate from the Congress to act.

Anti-corruption movement in India

Before I post my opinion, I will like to make it clear that I am not attached to any political party or group. I am a person to have voted only once in my career and that also about 22 years back, that so because I have found only once a candidate who was honest and having clean image.

Now coming to my point. What happened in New Delhi in the early hours of 5th June, 2011 is open to all. In fact, the issues being raised today are those which concern every common man. India achieved independence on 15th August, 1947. But what we achieved can be called a true independence? Absolutely not. No doubt, we got freedom from the alien rule. That is all. The dragons of divide and rule, communalism, regionalism, lingualism, casteism, poverty etc, and above all the problem of law and order were still there. What were the issues why we raised the voice for freedom? We wanted a form of government which was our own, a government which cared for our upliftment, a government which secured our country’s wealth, a government which defended its citizens’ life and property. Has the independent India achieved all these issues? When we study our nationalist leaders and their thoughts, we feel proud of our country. But the present day leadership has forced us to feel ashamed. In fact, one feels ashamed not of his motherland but of the system where one is forced to be crushed. Nobody’s life or property is secured in the country. The demon of unemployment dances over the heads of thousands of Indians.

When India was under the British rule, the cry was over drain of India’s wealth to Britain and other European countries. All major contracts were given to the Europeans. Indians remained unemployed as all the major jobs were reserved for the Europeans again. All these problems persist in the country even today. The British used to crush all those who dared to open their tongue against the British system. That problem is there even today. The example is the event of the night of 4th and 5th June.

The Congress leadership justifies that the danger of law and order was growing. Were the sleeping people, who were sitting on non-violent Satyagraha, making any plot in the midnight? The Police Commissioner of Delhi says that they attacked the Police with the bats of base-ball? Let me ask Mr. Commissioner had they gone to protest against corruption or playing base-ball or cricket. Accepted the people attacked them, but why had they gone there at that time? To be attacked. Very sad. And the Congress leadership justifies the action. The Prime Minister very proudly says that there was no other alternative with the government. I had a great regard for Mr. Manmohan Singh but now I hate this useless fellow. If he was being forced to take such an action, he should have resigned from his post and had been the most popular personality in the world. But it is also a universal truth that power makes a man corrupt and Mr. Singh is no exception to it.

The major issue why all this drama happened. India ranks among the top in corruption in the world. The Indian politicians and the Congress leadership in general are the most affected ones. This has been proved in this incident. Had Baba Ramdev not worked in this direction, he would have been the most affectionate for them. Now the government is talking of checking his assets. Was it sleeping for the last 6 or 7 years for which he is submitting the returns. It seems that the government is serious of tackling corruption only if the Baba is cornered. It will be better if it finds out the corrupt people from all walks of life in the country and then finds wrong with the Baba.

Many people compare the Ram Lila ground incident with the Jallianwala Bagh massacre of 1919. But there are certain differences in it. First of all, then the massacre was carried on by the foreign rulers, who had no love for the Indians, but this time it was our own elected rulers. Secondly, that event in the broad day-light, but this time it happened in mid-night, when everybody was sleeping soundly. But what is common in the two events is that in both the cases, something was being demanded from the rulers. In 1919 was the repeal of the Rowlatt Bill while in 2011 was the introduction of Lok-Pal and to take steps to put a stop on corruption. In 1919 the demand was not acceptable to the British and in 2011 it was not acceptable to the Congress. Today the Congress says it is not possible for the government to accept what the civilians demand. This is what the British used to say and the then Congress leadership used to agitate. Mr. Chidambaram and other Congress leaders say that the government is serious in curbing corruption? But the question is how? By crushing the people who agitate or dare to raise their voice against the system? If the Government is so serious then why it is doing so much drama and making such a hue and cry over this issue?

The present day Congress leadership should learn something from history. If it continues to crush the fundamental right of the masses to express their opinion, then the day is not far when we will see the 1789 of France or 1917 of Russia or 1949 of China in India very soon. God saves India!

Battle of Concessions in China

The Sino-Japanese War of 1894-95 proved to be a momentous and decisive event in the modern history of Far East. Apart from enabling Japan to revise her unequal treaties with the Western Powers and stimulating Japanese imperialism and exposing the ever growing weakness of China leading to the birth of anti-Manchu and pro-reform movement in the country, this war set in motion a process which has variantly been described as the “Battle of Concessions”, “Scramble for Concessions”, or “Cutting of the Chinese Melon” -- among the Powers of Europe and the West.
From Japan’s victory, it appeared to these powers that the Chinese Empire was falling to pieces. It was about to become another Africa, the booty of the powers. The idea of the partition of China gained ground; the nations began to scramble for spoil. There followed the struggle for concessions, for leased territories, for spheres of influence, which disregarding Chinese integrity seemed to promise only the imminent partition of the Empire.
Russia taking the initiative along with France and Germany, six days after the conclusion of the Treaty of Shimonesky, according to which South-East Manchuria was ceded to Japan by China, intervened to force Japan in giving up these gains. She did secure from China the island of Taiwan and the neighbouring islands.
It is very interesting to note that the Powers had undertaken this great step not sympathetically towards China but, in fact, they had their own axes to grind. In the true sense, their interests in various sectors in China were to clash with those of Japan. So they declared that in the name of peace in the Far East, it was their advice to Japan to renounce its possession of the Peninsula of Liao-tung, which “would at the same time render illusory the independence of Korea.” Being aware of ‘an unfriendly European intervention’, Japan accepted the advise.
Russia had won the point. It had opened the gates of what she desired. She had posed as the friend of China and won her goodwill, though the real cause of her intervention was her clash of interests with Japan in the Far-East. Again, she was aware of the growing economic needs of China due to war and corruption in the administration, which could be solved only through foreign loans.
Taking advantage of all this, Russia invited China’s ablest statesman of the time, Li Hung Chang, in 1896 at St. Petersburg, and by impressing upon him the friendliness of Russia towards China, persuaded him to sign the famous treaty of Lilo Vanu in 1896. The alliance was specifically directed against Japan, and the two agreed to support each other reciprocally, declare war or peace in common against the said country. In the case of war against Japan, China allowed Russia to use her ports promising to provide all necessary facilities. China also allowed Russia to construct tans-Siberian Railway across Northern Manchuria directly to Vladivostok. Russia assured China of her non-aggression towards the Chinese territory. In another term, Russia promised loan to China on easy instalments to help her pay war-indemnity to Japan.
To fulfill these obligations, a Russo-Chinese Bank was established in China which, as described in its charter, was to be agency to collect taxes, finance the business of local government, coin money and secure commercial and industrial concessions as well as the right to construct and extend railways and telegraph. The opinion of Dr. H.M. Vinacke is that “although organized and controlled under Russian law, the Russo-Chinese Bank was to serve as the fiscal agent of the Chinese government in addition to undertaking the work of financing rail-roads and other projects to Manchuria.”
The railway was to be under the joint control of Sino-Russian company for 80 years after which it was to become the property of China. However, it was narrated that should the Government of China wish to redeem the road at the beginning of the 37th year, she would have to pay a sum of at least 700 million rubles, but it seemed improbable that China would ever try to occupy it after such a huge payment.
After sometime, Russia consolidated her gains by further concessions. She got the ease of Port Arthur for 15 years with the condition that it will be opened only to the warships of China and Russia. She also got for 15 years Kiao-Chao as a naval base. She also got certain more favourable rights such as maintenance of law and order. Moreover, she got mining rights in Southern Manchuria.

The pace set by Russia was followed by Germany who also extracted concessions. She had already given notice to Russia and France about her desire to get concessions in China of port or ports where German ships could anchor, carry out repairs and get food supplies. Capitalizing on the situation created by the murder of two German missionaries in Shantung, Germany sent a strong naval squadron to Kiao-Chao and forced China to sign a treaty on March 6, 1898. The Treaty remarked that “The Imperial Chinese Government consider it advisable to give a special proof of their grateful appreciation of the friendship shown to them by Germany.”
- Germany got lease of Kiao-Chao Bay and adjacent territories for 99 years.
- She was to have full jurisdiction in the leased territory.
-Germany got free passage for her troops in the neutral zone up to 50 kilometres outside the leased area.
- Germany’s special claims in Shantung for any foreign aid were recognized.
- No Chinese or foreign control over German armies in neutral territory.
- Germany could not ‘sublet’ the territory leased to her.
- China would cede to Germany a more suitable place in the event the Germans returned the territory before the expiry of the lease period.
- China would construct Shantung Railway under a German company.
- Germany was given the right to take out coal from mines within 10 miles of Shantung.

France also followed the suit and compelled China to grant her concessions in the Treaty of 1898. She had already in 1895, secured a statement from China that she would not hand over the island of Hanan to any other power in lease. She had gained a concession in customs’ charging on goods entering China from the French dependencies in the South and also an opportunity to exploit the mines of Yunan, Kwangsi and Kwangtung Provinces. She also got the permission to extend the Annam railway into Chinese territory. But now in 1898, she furthered her interests:
- France was to get all facilities for the construction of Tongking-Yunnan railway.
- She got lease for 99 years of Kwangchao with the right to keep troops and extract coal.
- French advisers for Chinese postal service.

Britain alarmed at these developments, particularly on Russia’s growing influence in Peking, enforced a series of some agreements upon China during February to July 1898, according to which:
- She got the lease of Wei-Hai-Wei for the same period for which Russia possessed Port Arthur.
- Extension of the lease of the main territory opposite Hongkong.
- Boundaries of Burma were revised in her favour.
- Territories on Yang-Tse river not to be leased to any other power.
- A British national to be Inspector-General of customs.
- Lease of Formosa for 99 years.
- Right to construct railway up to 2800 miles (9 railroad concessions) was given to Britain.

Japan also made an agreement with China according to which the latter was not to alienate the Province of Fukien, lying across Formosa, to any other power. It was accepted by China.
Italy was the last to demand concessions from China, but being the weakest power, failed to get any. China boldly refused to comply with her wishes.

Thus it is evident from the preceding study that an acute struggle for concessions from China followed among the Europeans and the West after the Sino-Japanese War. The powers were now busy to secure their spheres of interest. Vinacke writes, “Each one of the power proceeded to secure from the others the fullest possible recognition of its exclusive interest in the area claimed by it for exploitation.” Clyde and Beers have also narrated that “an era of special and exclusive privilege was dawning in China.” It now appeared that the next logical step would be the partitioning of China among the powers. But this could not be possible partly due to the birth of a strong national and anti-foreign movement in China and partly on account of Hay’s Open Door Notes in which America clearly stated that she would not allow China to close her doors to this or that power in favour of one or the more concession-holding powers. Great Britain, already against the commercial interests within the sphere of interests, and a supporter of the Open Door Policy, greatly welcomed the Hay’s proposals, because in it Britain found the revival of its own Chinese policy of the years 1860 to 1865. Lack of mutual trust and acute rivalry and jealousies among these powers was also responsible for saving China from dismemberment. Thus writes Harold M Vinacke:
“The acceptance of the Hay principles by the Powers temporarily checked the movement toward the partition of China at the first stage of its development. The reaction of the Chinese government and people toward this foreign aggression, however, brought the question of the extinction of Chinese national life again to the front. The lesson of the Sino-Japanese War and the years immediately following was, fundamentally, that China must so reorganize herself that she could successfully defend herself against attacks from the outside. The government’s policy in the past had been to rely for the defence of the country upon the lack of harmony of interest among the European Powers. Russia’s aggressive tendencies, for example, would be held in check, it was thought by Great Britain. One Power could be so played off against another as to safeguard China. This “balance of power” theory, however, broke down in the face of the revelation of China’s weakness, and of the bringing into play of the sphere conception. A Russian alliance, it is true, was accepted to secure China against Japan. But the German demand for a lease-hold, and the acquiescence of the other states in the advance she made, changed the situation materially. The Russian alliance did not cover European aggression, and China found no one to give her active support in the face of the German threat. The ‘balance of power’ idea was invoked certainly, but to the entire disadvantage of China, since each Power demanded compensation for gains made by the others in order that the ‘balance’ should be preserved. Ultimately the action of a foreign state, the United States, did bring some external support to China, but only after the active contestants had stopped to take stock of the situation.”

Sino-Japanese Relations, 1870-1874 A.D.

The historical relations between China and Japan all centre in Korea and it was in and over Korea that they first came in serious conflict in the modern period of their history. The results of this conflict were to prove of tremendous significance not only in the history of the two immediate contestants involved in the conflict, but for the entire world.

Korea’s geographical situation was such that it inevitably became a bone of contention between her two neighbours -- China and Japan. Any one of these two powers, if in possession of Korea, could entertain and realise expansionist designs towards the other.

China being a vast and powerful country in the beginning was unaware of what was happening in Japan. In fact, she had looked with scorn towards Japan as an inferior nation. The situation began to change considerably since the second half of the 19th century. Japan, having once been opened to the West, was quick to learn Western sciences, technology, education and diplomacy, and consolidated her position. With the Meiji Restoration, internal unity of Japan under the Emperor strengthened. The situation was just the contrary in China. The Chinese territory was being trimmed and her influence was decreasing. The ruling Manchu dynasty was fast losing its prestige and vitality. Moreover, the Chinese suffering from a superiority complex were not inclined to learn anything from the West.

Again, the Chinese, by unwisely engaging into an armed conflict with the Western Powers had exposed her own weakness. As such, she was compelled to sign a number of humiliating treaties with them granting extra-territorial concessions, open a large number of her ports to trade with them and allow Christian missionaries. Her national prestige had thus been lowered. Japan proved wiser. It did not expose weakness by inviting armed conflict. She gave concessions to Europeans on honourable terms and also strengthened herself by adopting Western learning in science, technology and war.

Before the Meiji restoration, China had considered Japan merely a tiny State under her control and influence. But Japan had considerably strengthened her position after the Meiji restoration, and wanted to expand particularly in the direction of Korea. She also wanted to revise her relations with China on the basis of equality. As such, in the beginning of the seventies of the 19th century, Japan sent a Mission to China to conclude a treaty. But the Chinese Foreign Office showed reluctance for a Treaty on equal terms with Japan. She only allowed to latter to have trade with her. In 1871 A.D., a Treaty of friendship was signed between the two countries, thus marking the beginning of formal relations.

However, in 1874 A.D., the relations between the two neighbours worsened over Korea. It was under the formal control and nominal suzerainty of China, but for some years now she had not paid any attention to it. This led Japan to entertain political and territorial ambitions in Korea. Land and food for its ever expanding population, commercial expansion required due to rapid industrial progress, the imperialistic ambitions of Meiji Regime and Russia’s big naval station at Vladivostok near Korean borders with Russia’s designs against Korea itself were some of the factors that were responsible for Japan’s desire to have an early grab of Korea before any other power could do so.

Relations between China and Japan first came into conflict in 1874 A.D. over the Loochoo Islands. A certain number of ship-wrecked sailors of these islands were killed by some savage inhabitants in Formosa. Japan claiming sovereignty over Loochoo demanded compensation. China replied that Loochoo was her territory and ship-wreck incident was an internal affair of China in which Japan had no right to intervene. Japan adopted threatening policy by sending two armies -- one to Formosa and the other against China. But the mediation of the British representative, Sir Thomas, brought a compromise. China agreed to pay compensation and assured safety for Japanese seamen.

Importance: China indirectly agreed that Japan had some legal rights over Loochoo Islands. China’s responsible statesmen, such as Li-Hung-Chang, became conscious of Japan’s aggressive designs against China, which were most dangerous than that of the Europeans.

But the real conflict between China and Japan was over Korea. As rightly pointed out by Vinacke, "The historical relations of Japan and China all centre in Korea that they first came into serious conflict in the modern period of their history." As hinted above, Russia’s ambitions in regard to Korea and China’s neglect of Korea led Japan to strengthen her hold over the hermit Kingdom. As such, she concluded a treaty with Korea.

The League of Nations

The League of Nations was a result of the First World War. It stamps one of the most striking developments in the era between the two World Wars. The League, a part of President Wilson’s ‘Fourteen Points’, mainly aimed at preventing wars, or any other dispute between the two nations. Ketelbey says, “Like the Holy Alliance, the League was an expression of the desire of a war-weary world to preserve international peace and stability.”
The Covenant of the League
The Covenant of the League contained 26 articles. In these articles, the duties of the League were discussed. The Preamble states that the High Contracting Parties agreed to the Covenant “in order to promote international co-operation and to achieve international peace and security.” Some of the primary articles of the League are as follows:
- Independent nations of the world were invited to accept the membership of the League. Self-governing Dominions of the British Empire were also included to it. The Headquarters of the League were to be at Geneva in Switzerland.
- To prevent the outbreak of the War was the chief aim of the League.
- Every member-State pledged not to go to war. It had to submit first the matter in dispute to the League to consider upon. The war could not be declared unless three months had passed after the League had announced its decision, and when the decision was not accepted.
- If this undertaking of not going to war was violated by any of the member-State, others were free to take action by stopping trade, by blockade, and by the employment of force.
- The League managed for the member-States not to sign secret treaties. Copies of all the treaties were to be deposited with the League. Power was given to the League to call attention to the treaties, which might prove dangerous to the peace. The League could suggest the concerned States to revise those treaties.
The League differed with the Holy Alliance. It only dealt with the disputes of the countries and maintained peace in the world. It did not intervene in the internal affairs of the respective countries.
The Members of the League
The membership of the League can be studied as:
(a) Original Members: The States which had signed the Treaty of Peace (Grand Alliance) and thirteen neutral powers were invited to join the League immediately.
(b) Non-original Members: These States could become the members of the League after the approval of the Assembly by its 2/3 majority.
It was necessary for every member-State to pledge itself “to promote international co-operation and to achieve international peace and security by the acceptance of obligations not to resort to war.”
Any member-State could willingly withdraw from the League after giving two-years’ notice.
Organization of the LeagueThe organs of the League were as follows:
(a) The Assembly: The Assembly contained the delegates of various States. Each member-State could have three representatives, but only one could vote. All the important questions regarding the international, political and economic matters with dispute endangering the world-peace were referred to this body of the League, and it made the decisions. Every year, in the month of September, the Assembly was to meet at Geneva.
(b) The Council: As it was not possible for the Assembly to meet more than once a year, its Council performed much of the League’s business. It was to meet thrice a year and even more in emergency. It consisted of (i) Permanent members, representing the Great Powers, and (ii) Non-Permanent members, elected from time to time by the smaller States. Its actual composition changed many times after it was established.
(c) The Secretariat: A Secretariat was established in Geneva. A number of men and women were employed here as a Permanent International Civil Service. A Secretary General was appointed by the approval of the Council and the Assembly. It had to prepare the duties for the Assembly and the Council. The office of the Secretariat worked throughout the year.
The Council primarily aimed to make attempts to avoid wars. Articles X to XVII of the Covenant dealt with avoiding wars. Article X reads, “The members of the League undertake to respect and preserve as against external aggression the territorial integrity and existing political independence of all members of the League.” The League gave power to each member-State to call on the Assembly when needed.
The establishment of the League does not mean that international peace had been restored forever. It was decided that in order to settle the disputes between nations something suitable should be done lest they should take the shape of war.
(d) Court of International Justice: The League decided at its first session of the Assembly to establish a Court of International Justice. It was to sit at Hague from time to time. To this Court, the Assembly and the Council appointed a number of judges for nine years. The League of Nations had no power to remove them. Disputes could be referred to the Court for settlement within the provisions of International Law and the treaties between the parties to dispute. The decisions of the Court were binding and could not be challenged. The Court could revise its own judgment in the light of the facts brought before it. The Council and the Assembly could ask for the advisory opinion of the Court.
Till 1936, the Court dealt with seventy-one cases. Of these were forty-three disputes, which were settled judicially, while twenty-eight were requests for advisory opinions.
(e) International Labour Organization: The International Labour Organization was established to improve the conditions of the laborers and to civilize the backward countries up to the level of those prevailing elsewhere.
Functions of the League
1. Mandatory system: The League made some provisions for the annexed territories under the mandatory system. It was generally felt that the victors paid no attention to these territories and had done so, obviously, to fulfill their selfish motives. The League placed the sovereign administration of the territories captured from the Central Powers and Turkey not under any victor country, but to the powers under the supervision of the League. The process is called the ‘Mandatory System’. The mandatory powers were required to administer the mandatory State in order to help her political, social and economic development. The powers had to annually submit a report to the League, informing the progress made by the Province under their control. The League could also send its nominee to see how much progress the territories under the mandatory rule made. It was also hoped that when the regions under the mandatory system would make such progress that the continuance of the system seemed unnecessary, they would become eligible to get the League’s membership. In 1932 A.D., Iraq became eligible for the membership of the League and was granted independence.
2. Settlement of International Disputes: The main aim of the League was to prevent wars, and it succeeded in its aim many a times.
(i) Boundary Dispute: Greece and Yugoslavia were prepared for a war for Albania. However, the League intervened and solved the matter peacefully.
(ii) Bulgaria-Greek Dispute: Two Greek soldiers were killed in a conflict with Bulgaria. When Bulgaria refused to pay the compensation, Greece attacked upon it. Bulgaria appealed to the League. The Council ordered both the sides to remove their army from the field. A Commission was appointed, which found Greece guilty and ordered her to pay for the war-compensation. Both the sides accepted the decision. Thus the war came to an end.
(iii) Letacia Dispute (1933 A.D.): The army of Peru attacked Columbia and annexed Letacia from it. The League interfered in the matter on the appeal of Columbia. The decision went in the favour of Columbia and thus she recovered Letacia.
(iv) Dispute over Aaland Islands: The Aaland Islands were under Finland while her population was Swedish. In 1909 A.D., Finland along with Aaland Islands was annexed by Russia. In 1917 A.D., Finland became free and the population of Aaland Islands desired to be with Sweden. However, Finland was not prepared to accept this decision. In these circumstances, there was every possibility of a war. The League interfered in the matter and in June 1921 A.D., it was decided that Finland must have sovereignty over the Islands; people of the Islands were guaranteed autonomy and protection of their political rights; Swedish language in schools could be used; and rights of private property were to be preserved. The area was to be neutralized and unfortified. It was accepted by Sweden and Finland. Regarding it, an international treaty was signed on April 6, 1922 A.D.
(v) Tunis-Morocco Problem: It was between England and France, which was solved amicably.
(vi) Eupen and Malmedy: In 1920-21 A.D., Germany made protests before the League for giving Eupen and Malmedy to Belgium. The Council of the League discussed the matter and announced that its decision regarding the matter was final.
(vii) Hungarian Dispute: In the Paris Peace Conference, some area of Hungary was given to Romania. People of this place, however, wanted to remain under Hungary. They were allowed to go to Hungary, but could not take their property with them. Both the countries made a treaty when the League interfered.
(viii) Yorjovena Dispute: It was a dispute regarding the boundary between Poland and Czechoslovakia. The League appointed a Commission for boundary-limits, and succeeded in solving the problem.
3. Works for the Public Welfare
(i) Health: The member-States were to co-operate with the League in order to prevent the diseases.
Permanent Health Organization: The organization, established in 1923 A.D., made many attempts to prevent the increase in diseases in the backward countries. In this year, the Malaria Commission tried to prevent this dangerous disease. In 1931 A.D., a convention was called for the Rural Health Development. The delegates of the twenty-three member-States took part in it and worked for the improvement of the rural health.
(ii) Economic Reconstruction: A number of Economic Conventions were called. Among these, the Brussels Convention and the International Economic Convention are very famous. An International Relief Union was established, which gave economic help as the ‘First Aid’ through a treasure it made.
(iii) International Committee on Intellectual Co-operation: It was a seventeen-member committee, which spread the intellectual co-operation throughout the world.
(iv) Humanitarian Activities: The League of Nations strictly checked the trade of children and the women. It also made efforts to abolish slavery.
Thus the League did a lot of useful works for the human welfare, and that is why Cordell Hull says, “The League of nations has been responsible for more humanitarian and scientific endeavour than any other organization in history.”
4. Failures of the League: Besides the significant and successful activities of the League, it failed to solve a number of disputes.
(i) Vilna dispute: According to the Paris Peace Conference, the city of Vilna was given to Lithuania, taking from Poland. In 1920 A.D., Poland annexed the city militarily. Lithuania made an appeal to the League. Although the League intervened, yet it failed to get Vilna back from Poland.
(ii) Corfu dispute: Mussolini demanded compensation for the murder of the Italian delegates in the Greek territories, while they were fixing the boundary line for Albania. On the refusal by Greece, Mussolini bombarded it and annexed Corfu. Greece made an appeal to the League, which ordered Italy to pay compensation for her behaviour. Mussolini, however, did not care for the League’s decision. Although, later on, he called back his army from Corfu, yet he compelled Greece to pay compensation. It was completely a failure on the part of the League.
(iii) Dispute between Bolivia and Paraguay: An armed clash took place between Bolivia and Paraguay in December 1928, for the region of Granchaco. The area was under Bolivia, which was militarily annexed by Paraguay. Bolivia made an appeal to the League. When the League gave her decision against Paraguay, she refused to accept it. On being compelled, Paraguay resigned from the League’s membership. However, the dispute was later settled with U.S.A.’s intervention, but the fact remains that the League had failed here.
(iv) Japanese attack over Manchuria: Japan had fixed her eyes over Manchuria for a long time. On September 18, 1931 A.D., Japan annexed all the Chinese towns within a radius of 200 miles north of Mukden, and kept on to conquer Manchuria. China made many appeals to the League in this regard and Japan was ordered to retreat from Manchuria. However, Japan paid no attention to it. The British policy of appeasement also gave much force to her aims, and she ultimately succeeded in annexing it. On March 27, 1933 A.D., Japan resigned from the membership of the League. The process again proved the incapability of the League.
(v) Italian attack upon Abyssinia: In 1934-35 A>D., there were clashes between the troops of Italy and Abyssinia, as a consequence of Mussolini’s imperialistic policy. Prior to the attack, he had received much help from England and France as well. He put a number of unreasonable claims for compensation and then annexed the whole of Abyssinia. Although the League tried to check Italy, Mussolini did not care for it and remained busy with his activities. The policy of Collective Security was also a complete failure; because every State started feeling that it could do howsoever it may please without any fear of collective action against her.
(vi) Spain: Italy and Germany helped General Franco against the Republicans during the Civil War in Spain. The republicans sought help from the League. The League announced that no State could give military assistance to any faction during the Civil War. But Italy and Germany paid no attention to this order. After 1939 A.D., when General Franco won, England gave recognition to his Government. It minimized the League’s position.
(vii) Sino-Japanese War: In 1936 A.D., Japan attacked China without declaring a war. China requested the League for enforcing financial ban on Japan, but the League refused, as Japan was no more her member.
The League, thus, failed many a times in her mission to prevent the outbreak of the war and her existence proved of no value.
Causes of the failure of the League of Nations
The ultimate failure of the League of Nations was a cumulative result of a variety of factors.
(i) The League’s inter-relation with the Paris Peace Conference: From the very beginning, there were many States who were dissatisfied with the Peace Conferences. Those who had no belief in the Paris Peace Settlement did always hate the institutions related to it.
(ii) Dismemberment of America: Though President Wilson had aspired for the League of Nations, yet U.S.A. did not join the League. Consequently, the decisions of the League did not stick on America. If the League imposed financial restrictions, America was always there to help her. Thus the punishment that the League inflicted upon any erring nation had no impact.
(iii) Limited powers of the League: The scope of the activities of the League was large, while its powers were limited. This inequality also became a factor of its failure.
(iv) Wrong policies of the member-States: The response of the member-States towards the League was not sincere. Hence it also became a factor for its failure. France wanted to use it as an instrument to pressurize Germany. England wanted to use it for her commercial gains. Germany saw in it a house of conspiracy against her, while to Russia it was a conspiracy against Communism. The policy of appeasement of England also became a cause of its failure.
(v) Little number of the members: All the nations in the world had not become its members. U.S.A. did not join it. Germany and U.S.S.R. joined it later on, but soon left it. Japan also resigned its membership. Later on, the League with its limited membership was known only as a ‘community of victors’. Mutual non-cooperation and disbelief also became a cause of its failure.
(vi) Rise of Dictatorship: The rise of dictators like Mussolini and Hitler made it difficult for the League to carry on its work of International Peace. They wanted to rule over the world on the basis of their power, and were never prepared to sign any treaty, which could prove a hindrance to their imperialist designs.
(vii) Wrong policy of the League to defend peace: The League bowed to injustice in order to defend peace. When Italy attacked Abyssinia, her ruler Helsilasy declared, “Peace can be defended by justice and the second method is to defend peace at any cost. If the League tries to defend Peace at the altar of its member-State at any cost, the League will suicide.” Helsilasy’s views proved to be accurate.

Although the League was called a ‘League of notions’ or a ‘league of robbers’ and it was felt that the League could only bark and did not bite, yet it did a lot of work which proved very significant during its existence of twenty years. There were some disputes, which the League settled very successfully, yet it had to come forth a number of problems, which it failed to settle at all. On the whole, according to Walters, “The League as a working institution is dead, but the ideals which it sought to promote, the hopes to which it gave rise, the method it devised, the agencies it created, have become an integral part of the political thinking of the civilized world.”

Ranjit Singh established in Punjab a pure and unmitigated Despotism

“Ranjit Singh established in the Punjab a pure and unmitigated despotism.” This is what Dr. G.L. Chopra says in his remarkable work, Punjab as a Sovereign State. According to him, by destroying the Misls and allowing the Gurmatta to decay, Ranjit Singh, in reality, transformed the whole constitution of the Sikhs from irregular theocratic commonwealth of a loose federal type into a military monarchy based on personal rule.
The Gurmatta, at the time of the rise of Ranjit Singh had lost much of its popularity. The Sikh chieftains, born in circumstances of comparative affluence, and brought up in an atmosphere of mutual hostility, had by the time of Ranjit Singh lost all sense of common brotherhood. This was a reason why only a few attended the last Gurmatta convened by Ranjit Singh in 1805. On the contrary, they had imbibed personal ambitions and selfish motives which did not allow them to act together. Another cause of the decay of Gurmatta was the backward conditions of the masses. Such an institution as Gurmatta required for its successful working a state of society of far greater corporate consciousness and intelligence than that of the Sikhs. Thus the Gurmatta, from its very composition was not suitable for the purpose of an extensive dominion, as it was also incompatible with the growing power of an inherent genius. Hence it naturally gave way to single temporal authority.
Under Ranjit Singh’s personal despotism, the Punjab was governed in a manner that generally suited the existing state of society. The village life, throughout the country, was hardly interfered with except for the purpose of collection of land revenue or the recruitment of for defense purposes. The local affairs remained within the affinity of Panchayats. Thus Ranjit Singh’s government, however despotic it may have been, was not meddlesome enough to prevent the development of individual character. It is amply borne out by the fact that among the foremost dignitaries of the court of Lahore, there were many who owed their position to their own personal qualities, rather than any hereditary recommendation.
Ranjit Singh’s authority was never based upon his inherent superiority, or any Theory of the Divine Right of Kingship. He never arrogated to himself any high-sounding titles, or claimed supernatural powers. On the contrary, he always justified his aggressive designs by showing that they were directed to the glory of the whole Sikh Church. It is indeed by recalling to our mind the political environment in which the religion of the Sikhs had developed, and the fact that its transformation into a military creed was a counterblast against the Muslim bigotry, that we fully realize the real cause of the popularity of Ranjit Singh’s government.
From the viewpoint of his own subjects, the despotism of Ranjit Singh on the whole may be described as benevolent. He was no alien ruler in point of race and religion. Under his authority, the economic resources though limited, were utilized fully within the empire. Through the blessings of his rule, Punjab entered upon a period of internal peace and prosperity, which had been denied for several generations, when compared to the conditions which preceded the establishment of Ranjit Singh’s rule.
Ranjit Singh, however, cannot be said to have bestowed any constitution on the Punjab. If he had any theory of government, it was to reduce all his subjects to the same political level. This was one of his fixed aims. For this purpose he reduced every Sikh chieftain to a subordinate semi-feudal position. He had not inherited any elaborate system of government from his predecessors, much because of the pre-occupation of the chiefs in resisting foreign invasions. Such an atmosphere was obviously little conducive to the growth of definite ruler, or development of any check on the absolute power of the ruler. The Punjab had virtually degenerated into chaos and confusion at the time of the establishment of Ranjit Singh’s authority and he was occupied for over thirty years with military campaigns for the consolidation of his Kingdom.
Hence in the words of Dr. G.L. Chopra, “It was but natural that he (Ranjit Singh) should confine his efforts in the field of legislation to the task of restoration and the revival of a workable system of administration rather than aim at innovation and introduction of new laws.”