There is a general impression that the English rule was supportive of Missionary endeavours to spread the Christian religion. This impression has been deliberately fed into the Indian people by the textbook historians.

See this QUOTE from Revd. Abbs’ writing:

“As both the Rajah (or sovereign) of that time, and the heir apparent were peaceable men, partially enlightened, and favourable to Europeans, I do not suppose we should have found difficulty, had not both been guided in their public movements by a Dewan or native Prime Minister, and a British Resident, or political representative of England. Both of these were hostile to Christianity, the former as a bigoted heathen, the latter as a worldly statesman, and both for want of acquaintance with its nature.

“We soon discovered that the agent of our Christian land, although a Scotchman attached as he said to the Church of England and her services, was much opposed to missionary effort, and more fearful than were the Brahmins respecting the effects of evangelical religion...............

“He was a General in the Artillery, and must have left home at a very early age, as, although not a very old man, he had served nearly forty years in the Indian army. To say that he was profoundly ignorant of spiritual religion would be only saying that he was like most of the East India officers of that time, although it is probable that not having seen much of missionary operations, and having been (as I was afterwards) more associated with what he called ‘native friends’ than with European society, his ideas concerning our character and intentions were more alarming, absurd and exaggerated, than were those of others who had come into contact with our institutions.”