Hello, I'm Mr. Marchin and I'll be your history teacher for today.

I'm really looking forward to starting our learning journey together, and my role will be to make sure that you can meet today's learning objective.

Welcome to today's lesson, which is part of our unit on the British Empire, where we are asking ourselves, to what extent was the British Empire transformed in the mid-19th century? By the end of today's lesson, you'll be able to assess the extent to which British rule in India changed after the Indian Rebellion.

There are three key words which will help us navigate our way through today's lesson.

Those are rebellion, sepoys, and proclamation.

During a rebellion, people challenge the authority and even fight against those who govern them.

Sepoys were Indian soldiers employed in European armies.

And a proclamation is an official announcement about something important.

Today's lesson will be split into three parts and we'll begin by focusing on Company rule.

In the early 19th century, most of India was under British control.

However, it was not the British government which controlled India.

Instead, India was ruled by the British East India Company, otherwise known as the EIC.

So who was responsible for ruling most of India during the early 19th century? Was it the British government, the Church of England, or the East India Company? Pause video here and press play when you're ready to check your answer.

Okay, well done to everybody who said that the correct answer was C.

In the early 19th century, it was the East India Company that ruled over most of India.

Company rule in India was increasingly unpopular by the mid-19th century.

The political, economic and social impacts of EIC policies in India all contributed to rising opposition to Company rule and we'll think about this growing opposition and the problem in these policies in turn.

So let's start by thinking about the political impacts of Company rule in India.

Some areas of India, such as Awadh, still retained their own traditional rulers by the mid-19th century.

The EIC introduced the Doctrine of Lapse around the 1840s.

If local Indian rulers died without an heir or were accused of governing badly, the Doctrine of Lapse allowed the EIC to take direct control over the areas which those rulers had governed.

The EIC exaggerated problems in Awadh in 1856 to justify removing its leader under the Doctrine of Lapse, direct Company rule began in Awadh instead.

So let's make sure we have a secure understanding of what we just heard.

What was the name of the policy which the EIC used to justify removing traditional rulers in areas like Awadh? Pause video here and press play when you're ready to check your answer.

Okay, well done to everybody who said the correct answer was the Doctrine of Lapse.

The Doctrine of Lapse was the policy used by the EIC to remove traditional rulers and introduce direct Company rule in some parts of India.

And now we can think about the economic impacts of Company rule.

The Company began large-scale railway, port and canal construction projects in India.

These all made it easier for Britain to trade with India.

However, the EICs projects were very expensive and were paid for by ordinary Indians through taxation.

As a result, some taxes increased by 28% under Company rule in India.

So let's check our understanding of what we've just heard.

Why were EIC construction projects so unpopular in India? Is it because the projects destroyed the natural landscape, because the projects led to significant tax rises or because the projects took too long to complete? Pause the video here and press play when you're ready to see the right answer.

Okay, well done to everybody who said that the correct answer was B.

EIC construction projects was so unpopular in India because they led to significant tax rises.

Some taxes increased by 28% as a result.

And now we can consider the social impacts of Company rule.

The EIC began to interfere with Indians' beliefs more actively in the early 19th century.

Some Indians feared the EIC wanted to convert them to Christianity.

After 1813, Christians were allowed to promote their religion in India.

So this increased the worries of Muslims, Hindus, and Sikhs living under Company rule.

Furthermore, in 1829, Sati, which is a traditional Hindu practise of burning widows when a husband dies, was banned by the East India Company.

This also contributed to the fears that the EIC was trying to change people's religion in India.

So, let's check our understanding of what we just heard.

I want you to change one word to correct the following sentence.

Many Indians feared the EIC wanted to convert them to Islam.

So think about which word appears to be incorrect and what it should be changed to.

Pause the video here and press play when you're ready to check your answer.

Okay, well done to everybody who changed the word Islam to Christianity.

Many Indians feared the EIC wanted to convert them to Christianity.

This was because of policies such as allowing Christians to spread their beliefs in India from 1813 and also the ban on Sati, which was introduced in 1829.

So we are now in a good position to put all of our knowledge about Company rule into practise.

I want you to study the following statements.

They say most of India was ruled by a British company, not the British government in the early 19th century.

The EIC construction projects in India were quite cheap.

The EIC used the Doctrine of Lapse to take over more territory, and the EIC refused to interfere with Indians' beliefs and traditions.

I want you to do two things in response to these statements.

Firstly, you need to identify whether each statement is true or false.

You might signal your answers with a simple tick or cross.

And then secondly, I want you to correct any statements which are false.

You should provide additional detail to support your corrections.

So pause video here and press play when you're ready to reflect on your responses.

Okay, well done for all of your hard work on that task.

So, firstly, I asked you to identify whether each of our statements was true or false.

You should have said that the first statement was true.

Most of India was ruled by the EIC in the early 19th century.

You should have said that the second statement was false, that the third statement was true.

The EIC used a Doctrine of Lapse to take over some territories such as Awadh, and that the fourth statement was false.

So then for the second part of task A, we needed to correct any of our false statements.

So, your answers may have looked like, EIC construction projects in India were expensive.

In some areas the EIC increased taxes by 28% to fund its projects, and the EIC interfered with Indians' beliefs and traditions.

For example, the Company banned a traditional practise of Sati in 1829.

So really well done if you identified whether each statement was true or false correctly, and if your corrections looked something like those models, which we've just seen.

So now we're ready to move on to the second part of our lesson for today where we are going to focus on the Indian Rebellion.

In 1857, a rebellion against Company rule began in India.

The rebellion lasted for over a year, spread across many different regions of India and involved millions of people fighting against and on behalf of the British.

The Indian Rebellion began when sepoys employed in the EICs Bengal army began to turn against their British commanders.

This rebellion was triggered by rumours that a new gun provided by the Company would require sepoys to bite off the end of a cartridge covered in pig and cow fat.

For the Muslim and Hindu sepoys, this action would lead to religious contamination.

And so the rumour heightened fears that the EIC was not respecting their religious beliefs.

100,000 sepoys in the EICs Bengal army rebelled against Company rule in 1857.

The rebellion quickly spread to other groups in society, such as poor peasants and Indian rulers who'd been removed from power by the EIC.

In total, an area twice the size of the UK was affected by the Indian Rebellion.

Outside of Bengal, rebels also attacked the British in Awadh and gained control over Delhi.

300 British soldiers were based in a town of Cawnpore in northern India, living alongside 600 other British residents, many of whom were women and children.

When Indian rebels attacked Cawnpore in 1857, the British population was massacred.

Only five men and two women would survive the Indian attack.

So, let's check our understanding.

What triggered the Indian Rebellion? Was it rumours that the EIC was about to increase taxes, rumours the EIC was not respecting sepoys' religious beliefs, or rumours the EIC was planning to conquer more of India.

Pause video here and press play when you're ready to see the right answer.

Okay, well done to everybody who said that the correct answer was B.

The Indian Rebellion was triggered by rumours the EIC was not respecting sepoys' religious beliefs.

And let's try another question.

How many sepoys in the EIC's Bengal army rebelled in 1857? Pause the video here and press play when you're ready to check your answer.

Okay, well done to everybody who said the correct answer was 100,000.

100,000 sepoys in the EICs Bengal army rebelled against the Company in 1857.

And let's try one more question just to make sure we have a really secure understanding of what we've heard so far.

This time, we have a statement that reads, Indian rebels at Cawnpore massacred British soldiers but not their wives and children.

Is that statement true or false? Pause the video here, and press play when you're ready to see the right answer.

Okay, well done to everybody who said that that statement was false, but we need to be able to justify our response.

So two justifications have appeared on the screen.

The first says that Indian rebels at Cawnpore targeted women and children, but not soldiers.

And the second says that almost the entire British population at Cawnpore was massacred by Indian rebels.

So which one of those two justifications is correct? Pause video here and press play when you're ready to see the right answer.

Okay, well done to everybody who said that the correct justification was B.

Almost the entire British population of Cawnpore was massacred by Indian rebels.

In fact, a British population of 900 people living at Cawnpore, only seven would survive the attack.

Initially, Indian rebels were successful at overpowering those forces, which remained loyal to the EIC.

However, these successes began to be reversed as the British government sent thousands of troops from Britain to India.

The British also benefited from the continued loyalty of groups such as Sikhs from the Punjab.

By the end of 1858, the rebellion in India had been defeated, although in many cases this had also involved the use of extreme violence by British forces.

Entire villages were destroyed because they were accused of supporting the rebels.

The people in India who suffered from this widespread violence referred to it as the Devil's Wind.

By the end of the rebellion it's estimated that at least 100,000 Indians had died.

And some historians even estimate that the true figure for Indian deaths could be as high as 800,000.

So let's reflect on what we've just heard.

What did Indians refer to as the Devil's Wind? Was it extreme weather which made it impossible to continue the Indian rebellion, extreme violence by British forces fighting against the Indian rebellion, or extreme violence by rebels fighting against the British during the Indian Rebellion? Pause video here and press play when you're ready to see the right answer.

Okay, well done to everybody who said that the correct answer was B.

Indians referred to the extreme violence used by British forces fighting against the Indian Rebellion as the Devil's Wind.

So, we're now in a good position to put all of our knowledge about the Indian Rebellion into practise.

I want you to explain why the Indian Rebellion has been considered a serious challenge to British rule in India.

You may refer to the rebellion's scale and the actions of rebels.

So pause the video here and press play when you're ready to reflect on your response.

Okay, well done for all of the effort you put into that task.

So I asked you to explain why the Indian Rebellion has been considered a serious challenge to British rule in India.

Your answer may have included, Indian Rebellion was a serious threat to British rule in India because it was wide-scale and because of the violence of some rebels.

The rebellion spread across an area twice the size of the UK making it very hard to manage.

Furthermore, the rebels could be very violent placing British residents in India in great danger.

For example, at Cawnpore, a massacre by Indian rebels left just seven survivors from a British population of 900 before the attack.

So, really well done if your own response looks something similar to that model, especially if you are able to refer to both the scale of the Indian Rebellion and the actions rebels as part of your answer.

So now we're ready to move on to the third and final part of our lesson for today where we are going to think about crown rule in India.

After the Indian Rebellion, the British wanted to prevent any further serious challenges to their power occurring in India.

This led to a number of reforms in the way that the British ruled India.

After the Indian Rebellion was defeated in 1858, the British government announced that India would no longer be governed by the East India Company.

Instead, India became a Crown Colony, meaning that it was to be governed directly by the British government.

A new department was created in the British government, the India office, which was responsible for governing India.

In India, the British government appointed a Viceroy who was responsible for carrying out the policies decided upon by the India office.

It was intended that these reforms would deliver more responsible government than had been the case under the Company.

The British government also tried to rebuild relations with local Indian rulers.

In a proclamation by Queen Victoria, the government promised to respect the rights, dignity, and honour of Indian princes.

After 1858, this meant that the British government abandoned the EICs use of the Doctrine of Lapse.

So, let's check our understanding of what we've just heard.

We have a statement on the screen that reads, after the Indian Rebellion responsibility for governing India was taken away from the EIC.

Is that statement true or false? Pause the video here and press play when you're ready to see the right answer.

Okay, well done to everybody who said that that statement was true, but we need to be able to justify our response.

So two justifications have appeared on the screen.

The first, says that India gained independence from Britain, so Indians were able to run the country for themselves.

And the second says that India became a Crown Colony.

So it was ruled directly by the British government.

So which one of those two justifications is correct? Pause the video here and press play when you're ready to see the right answer.

Okay, well done to everybody who said that the correct answer was B.

After the Indian Rebellion, India became a Crown Colony.

So it was ruled directly by the British government instead of by the East India Company.

After the Indian Rebellion, the British government continued to spend large amounts of money on projects such as funding the Indian Army and expanding the railway network throughout India.

As a result, taxation remained an issue in India, even after the rebellion of 1857.

By some estimates, agricultural taxes were higher in India than in any other part of the world.

Whilst the British government retained unpopular taxes like those which were placed on salt.

However, when Crown rule began in India, the British government did also publish a proclamation by Queen Victoria, which promised the Indian people that we do not want to force any of our subjects to accept our Christian religion.

It is my royal will that no one should be favoured or treated unfairly because of their religion.

All officials who are under my authority will avoid interfering with the religious beliefs and worship of our subjects in India.

This set of promises was designed to reassure Indians who'd previously been concerned by the social policies of the East India Company.

So, let's reflect on what we've just heard.

Which statement is most accurate? After 1857, the British government removed unpopular taxes, like those on salt.

After 1857, the British government continued to collect unpopular taxes, like those on salt, or after 1857, the British government increased unpopular taxes, like those on salt.

Pause the video here and press play when you're ready to see the right answer.

Okay, well done to everybody who said that the correct answer was B.

After 1857, the British government continued to collect unpopular taxes, like those on salt.

Other tax issues also continued in India, for example, taxes on agriculture were estimated to be higher in India than in any other part of the world in the late 19th century.

And let's try another question.

We have a quotation from Queen Victoria's 1858 proclamation.

In it, the Queen said, "All officials who are under my authority will avoid interfering with the religious beliefs and worship of our subjects in India." So what was the queen promising? Was it that non-Christians could continue to practise their own religions, that non-Christians would have to convert to Christianity, or that non-Christians would be punished by British officials? Pause the video here and press play when you're ready to check your answer.

Okay, well done to everybody who said that the correct answer was A.

In Queen Victoria's 1858 proclamation, the British government promised that non-Christians could continue to practise their own religions without interference from British officials.

So, we're now in a good position to put all of our knowledge from today's lesson about how Britain governed India into practise.

I want you to study Aisha's view shown on the screen.

Aisha says that, "British rule in India was totally different after the Indian Rebellion compared to beforehand." So how accurate is Aisha's view? And I want you to explain your answer.

You may consider the political, economic, and social impacts of British rule before and after the Indian Rebellion.

So pause video here and press play when you are ready to reflect on your response.

Okay, well done for all of your effort on that task.

So, I asked you how accurate is Aisha's view and told you you needed to explain your answer.

So your answer may have included, Aisha's view is not correct as there were some significant continuities in how the British ruled India before and after the 1857 Rebellion.

For instance, taxation remained high to fund spending by the British.

Unpopular taxes like the salt tax which had been collected by the EIC remained in place when India became a Crown Colony.

So many Indians continued to struggle financially under British rule.

Nevertheless, there were some areas where British rule became totally different, for example, whereas the EIC had banned cultural practises such as Sati, Queen Victoria's 1858 proclamation promised to "avoid interfering with the religious beliefs and worship of any of our subjects in India." This suggests that British rule became more tolerant of Indian beliefs and worship.

So well done if your own response looks something like that model there.

And that means we've now reached the end of today's lesson.

So we're in a good position to summarise our learning about the British Empire in India.

We've seen that the British East India Company ruled over most of India in the early 19th century.

The Company rule was unpopular because of its political, economic, and social impacts on Indians.

In 1857, British rule was seriously challenged by the Indian Rebellion.

In 1858, India became a Crown Colony as control over India was transferred from the EIC to the British government.

And as a Crown Colony, there was less interference with Indians beliefs, but British taxes remained high and continued to be unpopular.

So really well done for all of your effort throughout today's lesson.

It's been a pleasure to help guide you through our resources, and I look forward to seeing you again in future as we think further about the British Empire and continue to ask ourselves, to what extent was the Empire transformed in the mid-19th century?.