Category: 1750 to 1850

Past present: When the empire crumbled

When the Mughal empire disintegrated, the provincial governors took advantage of the weakening central authority, became independent. Others also adopted royal titles.

With the collapse of authority, robbers, bandits and thugs became encouraged to plunder caravan processions passing through unprotected cities, towns and villages. Amid chaos, the common people hoped that a leader would emerge, come forward and protect them from marauders wandering freely from one place to another.

After the death of Aurangzeb in 1707, the Mughal empire was involved in continuous wars of succession, which divided the nobility and erased the political structure.

Anarchy led to rebellions by the disgruntled nobility who wished to access high offices in order to loot and plunder state resources. The result was a decline of moral values which plunged the whole society into disarray and turmoil.

Under these circumstances, Shah Waliullah raised his voice against the course of decline and suggested measures for revival of Muslim power in the subcontinent. His main concern was to improve the political, social and economic condition of the Muslims, while disregarding other communities who also confronted the same situation and needed support and guidance to survive. Failing to produce capable rulers to control state affairs and to ably administer the political and economic system, the Mughal Empire finally lost its energy and vitality. The decline reached a point where reformation seemed impossible.

In his narrow-minded approach, Waliullah believed that he was sent by God to save and lead the Muslims of India. He claimed to have dreamt that he was appointed by the divine authority to guide the Muslims. As a self-proclaimed leader of the Muslims, his major concern was to unite the Muslim community which was in a state of chaos and disorder. In order to achieve his goals, he decided to win over the nobility and implement reforms with their help. He firmly believed that only the Muslims were capable of ruling India and that if the Hindus were desirous of power, they would have to convert to Islam.

According to Waliullah, this was what had happened with the Turks who had accepted Islam after becoming rulers. He believed that Islam was a universal religion and therefore, all other religions should be eliminated and Islam imposed on everyone as the true faith. Waliullah exhorted the followers of Judaism and Christianity to adopt Islam and any refusal was regarded as an unpardonable denial of God.

To revive Muslim power in India, Waliullah decided to take a strong step against the Marathas, Sikhs, and the Jats. However, he failed to understand that it was not possible to recruit an army which purely consisted of Muslims, since the society consisted of many religions, communities, sects and ethnicities intermingled and inseparable from each other.

He wrote letters to Najib-ud-Daulah and Ahmad Shah Abdali, advising that Muslim property should not be looted by the army. In one letter he warned Ahmad Shah Abdali to watch out for some Hindus in his service whoappeared loyal to him but were actually insincere to Abdali’s cause. In his letters, he advised that Muslim soldiers could not fight against Muslim rulers as God would check their movement and prevent any action which could be harmful to Islam.

Waliullah believed that the main reason for the decline of the Muslims was that they shared their business, social and political affairs with non-Muslims.

Shah Waliullah did not realise the fact that the Hindus served in the army, the revenue and other government departments and the Muslim rulers relied on their services for running the state administration which the Muslim community alone could not have managed. His suggestion to exclude the Hindus and their welfare antagonised the two communities.

When the Muslim nobles did not respond to his appeal, he called upon Ahmad Shah Abdali to help materialise his scheme. He urged Abdali that it was his religious duty to help and save the Muslims when the Marathas attacked them. Consequently, the Marathas were defeated in the third battle of Panipat in 1762. It failed to revive the Mughal power in the subcontinent but helped the East India Company to gain power as Shah Waliullah had overlooked the growing influence of the British in the subcontinent.

According to Shah Waliullah, the subcontinent was not the real homeland for the Muslims and that they were mere strangers. He introduced the idea among the Muslims of India that they should embrace Arab culture and language and that God would help them to get out of the subcontinent.

Sadly, the ulema of the subcontinent led the Muslim community towards separation rather then integration with other communities.

https://www.dawn.com/news/1038270/past-present-when-the-empire-crumbled

Islamic revivalism – the Wahabi Movement

The Wahabi movement was a revivalist movement which tried to purify Islam by eliminating all the un-Islamic practices which had crept into Muslim society through the ages. It offered the most serious and well-planned challenge to British supremacy in India from 1830’s to 1860’s.
Syed Ahmad of Rae Bareli, the leader of this movement in India was influenced by the teaching of Abdul Wahab of Arbia, but even more by the preaching of the Delhi saint Shah Waliullah.
Syed Ahmed condemned all accretions to and innovations in Islam and advocated a return to the pure Islam and society of Arabia of the Prophet’s times.
For the achievement of the desired objectives, Syed Ahmad looked for (i) the right leader, (ii) a proper organisation and (iii) a safe territory from where he wanted to launch his Jihad.
Syed Ahmad had a countrywide organisation with an elaborate secret code for its working. It was strong at Sithana in the North-Westem tribal belt and at Patna though it had its missions in Hyderabad, Madras, Bengal, Uttar Pradesh and Bombay. Wahabism spread very rapidly in Bihar, Bengal, UP and North-Western India.
Since Dar-ul-Harb was to be converted into Dar-ul-Islam & Jihad was declared against the Sikh kingdom of the Punjab ruled by kingdom of Ranjit Singh. Peshawar was captured in 1830, but lost to the Sikhs the following year with Syed Ahmad losing his life in action in the battle of Balakot against the Sikhs (1831). After Saiyad Ahmad’s death, Patna became the centre of this movement.
After the overthrow of the Sikh ruler and incorporation of the Punjab into the East India Company’s dominion in 1849 the sole target of the Wahabi’s attack became the English dominion in India.

Supression of the Wahabi Movement

During the Revolt of 1857 the Wahabi’s played a notable role in spreading anti- British sentiments. The British rulers of India viewed the potential danger of the Wahabi’s base of operations from Sithana in the background of a possible war between Great Britain getting involved in a war with Afghanistan or Russia. In the 1860’s the Government launched a multi-pronged attack by organising a series of military operations on the Wahabi base of operations in Sithana while in India a number of court cases for sedition were registered against Wahabi’s.
The period between 1863-65, witnessed a series of trials by which all the principal leaders of the Wahabi movement were arrested. The Ambala trial of 1864 and Patna trial of 1865 were closely interlinked.
The movement lost its vitality though the Wahabi fanatics continued to help the frontier hill tribes in their encounters with the English in the 1880’s and 1890’s.

Analysis of the Wahabi Movement

The Wahabi movement was a movement of the Muslims, by the Muslims and for the Muslims and aimed at the establishment of Dar-ul-Islam in India.
At no stage did it assume the character of a nationalist movement. Rather it left behind a legacy of isolationist and separatist tendencies among the Indian Muslims.

Islamic revivalism – the Wahabi Movement

Islamic revivalism – the Feraizi Movement

Faraizi Movement nineteenth century religious reform movement launched by Haji Shariatullah. The term Faraizi is derived from ‘farz’ meaning obligatory duties enjoined by Allah.
The Faraizi Movement became very popular among the Muslim peasantry in various districts of Bengal during the British Rule. The Movement was founded to give up un-Islamic practices and act upon their duties as Muslims.
The movement was also concerned with the British influence upon Muslims and a call for social justice was raised.

Hazi Shariat Ullah

The organizer of this movement, Hazi Shariat Ullah was born in a peasant family of Bahadurpur village in Faridpur district of modern Bangladesh in 1781. He travelled to Mecca to learn the Quran and Islamic theology. Here he came across the Hanafi ideals. He spent twenty years abroad to master Islamic scholarship and returned home in 1818.
Returning home he launched a Faraizi movement to make the Bengal Muslims follow the true canons of Islam. For historical reasons the Muslims of Bengal had been following many indigenous customs, rituals and ceremonies which were far from the principles of Islam. Haji Shariatullah regarded British rule in Bengal as injurious to the religious life of the Muslims.
Haji Shariatullah announced that Islam was being defiled by various malpractices and suggested reform measures.
Though started as a religious movement, it soon became political in nature. Shariat Ullah termed British-ruled India a “Dar-ul-Harb” or a land of the enemy and felt it was not suitable for the habitation of pious Muslims.
He garnered public opinion against exploiting zamindars and indigo planters and very soon millions of poor Muslim farmers, artisans and jobless weavers became his disciples in Barisal, Mymensingh, Dhaka and Faridpur. It was an awakening for Bengali Muslims and they were bold enough to protest against the zamindar’s misrule.

Dudu Mian

In 1837 Shariat Ullah died, leaving the reins of the rebellion to son Dudu Mian (1819-60), an able and a politically conscious organizer. He transformed the Faraizi movement from being socio-religious to socio-economic-political.
Dudu Mian asked his disciples to stay away from anti-Islam activities. Acccording to him, Allah was the owner of the land hence the zamindar had no right to collect taxes. He called upon his men to abstain from paying taxes to the zamindar, from farming indigo for the planters and from supporting the British. His disciples swelled in numbers.
Dudu Mian’s headquarters were at Bahadurpur. He led his followers to raid treasuries and offices of zamindars and indigo planters.
The uniqueness of Dudu Miyan’s Faraizi Movement was that they had established their own law and their own law courts. The government courts were generally boycotted. A Munshi was appointed who exercised control over every two or three villages, adjudicated and settled civil as well as criminal cases. The courts established by the Faraizi Movement had become very popular among Muslim peasants as peasants found redress against the oppressions of the zamindars.
He used his organisational skills in dividing Bengal into several zones or halkas, each led by a Caliph. The Caliph organised the farmers, thwarted zamindars’ and indigo planters’ exploitation and raised funds for the forthcoming resistance.

Spread of Faraizi Rebellion

Gradually the Faraizi movement spread from Dhaka and Faridpur to Bakarganj, Comilla, Mymensingh, Jessore, Khulna and large parts of South 24-Parganas. For more than a quarter of a century he remained the controversial figure in Eastern Bengal. He had become a household name in these places.
The zamindars and indigo planters joined hands with the government to stop Dudu Mian. Between 1838 and 1847 he was imprisoned at least four times but had to be released owing to lack of witness against him. When the Sepoy Mutiny broke out in 1857, he was imprisoned at Alipore Jail as a precautionary measure.
Dudhu Miyan died in Dhaka in 1862, but the movement continued. His son, Noah Mian, took up his task but his focus shifted from anti-British activities to religious activities.
In absence of a strong centre, the movement became sporadic and there were isolated actions against the landlords, particularly in places where the Faraizis had their traditional centers.

Analysis of Faraizi Movement

Faraizi Movement weakened and eventually became a religious sect only. The Faraizi Movement was essentially an agrarian movement, though the demands were carefully dressed up in religious catchwords. Dudu Mian had invoked a new awareness among peasants by uniting them against zamindars and indigo planters.
The movement failed because of lack of political education among its leaders, anti-Hindu attitudes, and religious narrow mindedness, forcible induction of people, extortion and lack of proper leadership.

Islamic revivalism – the Feraizi Movement

Christian missionary activities in India

Christian missionary activities in British India

Generally, a missionary movement presupposes a group of people who take it as their religious duty to spread their religion to other parts of the World. It is the religious thought and the passion to make more and more people aware of their religious superiority or to make others conform to the same belief that a missionary movement is organised.
The British Government had three roles in India, first that of a trader, second that of ruler and then that of a Christian propagandist.British rulers held and professed Christianity. Consequently British rule was equated with Christian domination.

Early years of British rule: Upto 1813

In the early years of its rule the Company had taken a position of neutrality with regard to the religious and social affairs of its subject. The East India Company decided not to interfere with the traditional cultures of the people by supporting missionary work. The company’s policy was non-interference in Indian education but favouring traditional Hindu or oriental learning.
The non-interference probably based was on the fear that missionaries through English education expecting to aid conversions might offend the Hindu subjects of the company and create unrest. They felt that the missionaries would encourage the religious sentiments among the people in India that could affect the business policy and the diplomatic role of the East India Company. (This policy of non-interference with the customs and traditions of the natives and lack of support for missionary work were reviewed after the Company Charter was reviewed in 1813.)
It was during the 1770s and 1780s that several Englishmen, such as Edmund and Burke, argued that the East India Company’s power could not be justified unless it were exercised with morality and subject to Parliament’s control. But there efforts were not paid heed to.
Then Charles Grant, a junior officer in British East India Company, drafted the original proposal for mission in 1786-87, in their personal capacity, and campaigned for it for decades at their own expense. Grant sought only for an official endorsement of the East India Company for his proposal to start a missionary endeavour. He neither sought for Company’s money nor its manpower. He himself offered support to one of the missionaries from his personal capacity. Yet he was only given a hearing to Lord Cornwallis. However, though Lord Cornwallis assured him that he would not oppose the move for missions, he could not, as the Governor General, give his active support. Grant was therefore forced to go to the Christian leaders in England, who were big enough to influence the Government or big enough to fight the Company.
At that time, the only missionary-minded Christian figure in England, who had the status to bypass the East India Company and influence the Government itself, was John Wesley. Refusing permission to John Wesley to open mission would thus have been politically incorrect for the British. Besides him, the only Christian politician, then, who had the stamina to fight for a moral cause, was William Wilberforce. In 1793, Wilberforce studied Grant’s Book, and Wilberforce moved the famous Resolution on Missions, which were drafted by Grant himself. Three days later,‘the missionary clauses’ were accepted by the Committee, which sought to empower the East India Company to send out schoolmasters, and other approved persons, foe the religious and moral improvement of the inhabitants of the British Dominions in India. However, on the third reading of the Bill, the Clauses were rejected and the Court of Proprietors of East India Stock had a special Meeting and passed a resolution against the Missionary Clause.
Thus it can be found that while it is often accused that the Missionaries came to spread Christianity and are thus opposed because of it, there was also a counter force, in the form of the Company and few other influential people in England, who made an attempt to stop the promotion of Missionary movement in India as they feared that it would lead to the awakening of the Indian Hindu, and ultimately it would be the Company’s interestthat would suffer. Any rise in character of the natives could be so lament so as to lead to a most serious and fatal disaster.
Thus, it created an agitation against the East India Company that the Company was opposed to the teachings of Christ and neglected to provide education for the Indians.

Charter Act 1813

The battle for Missions heated up again in 1813, when the Company’s Charter came up for renewal. The situation was vastly different this time. Grant had grown in stature and influence, and had won himself a seat in Parliament. William Carey’s work had earned immense respect for missions, in Bengal as well as in England. Also, his struggle against the inhumanity of sati and the Company’s cowardice in not banning such an inhuman practice had became well known. It had therefore became harder to maintain that Indians should not be challenged to critically examine their beliefs and practices and missionaries should not be allowed to teach Indians to distinguish true faith from superstition.
There was a great unrest in the British Parliament ,in the year 1813, when the issue of permission to start missionary movement in India was asked. The chief ammunition for the opponents of mission was provided by the Vellore Mutiny, which began on July 10, 1806, being instigated by the sons of Tipu Sultan, who were allowed to live at Vellore after being defeated by the British forces. The immediate causes of the mutiny revolved mainly around resentment felt towards changes in the sepoy dress code, introduced in November 1805. Hindus were prohibited from wearing religious marks on their foreheads and Muslims were required to shave their beards and trim their moustaches. This Mutiny followed a lot of events creating unrest in Britain as well as in India and ended with the Governor General of Madras Presidency, William Bentick being recalled back to London.
Several officials of the Company argued that the restrictions on the missionaries should continue: the Indian are civilized enough and do not need the missionaries. But the missionaries and their political supporters had prepared a formidable attack. Indians are in the darkest plight, they argued. The conversion of India to Christianity will spell temporal benefits to the heathens. Far from the unsettling it, the conversion of the heathens to Christianity will further consolidate the empire.
Finally a missionary clause was attached to Charter Act 1813 passed by the Parliament. Charter Act of 1813 permitted made provisions to grant permission to the persons who wished to go to India for promoting moral and religious improvements that means Christian missionaries to propagate English and preach their religion.
It also allotted Rs 100,000 to promote education in Indian masses.

Charter Act 1833

The charter act of 1833 laid down regulation of permanent presence of missionaries in India and the number of Bishops were made 3. The charter act of 1833 made provision for Anglican hierarchy at Calcutta.
Finally in 1833, the policy of the company was changed under pressure from the Evangelicals in England. This marked the first decisive step of missionary work in India. A spokesman of the Evangelicals declared: “The true cure of darkness is the introduction of light. The Hindus err because they were ignorant and their errors have never fairly been laid before them. The communication of our light and knowledge to them would prove the best remedy for their disorders”.
With the expansion of the British Empire missionaries began to arrive and Christianity began to spread by establishing dioceses at Madras and Bombay. Ever since there existed a renewed cooperation between the missionaries and the colonial power in helping one another in their missions.

Charter of 1853

Then came the Charter of 1853, which declared a renewed commitment of Educational responsibility of the Company. This provision led to the famous Educational Dispatch of 1854, drafted by the Committee chaired by Sir Charles Wood, a devout Evangelical who was also an ‘undercover’ missionary.
This fact was summed up by the 1858 Proclamation of Queen which said that ‘it should breathe feelings of generosity, benevolence and religious feelings, pointing out the privileges which the Indians will receive in being placed on an equality with the subjects of the British Crown.

Missionaries’ views on Indian Culture

The characteristic feature of nineteenth century missions was the enthusiasm for the multiplication of missionary efforts. The priority of the colonial missions was conversion. Conversion of individual souls was considered the sole end of mission.
The British rule had provided favourable atmosphere and necessary infrastructure for the missions to work even in the remotest mountain villages without confronting much opposition. Julius Richter says that, it would be hard to find any land possessing so great an attraction for the missionary societies.
After the Charter of 1833 was renewed, missionaries were allowed freely to come to India. Missionary teams became powerful and their style of work changed. By this time a new set of missionaries rooted in ‘the iconoclastic zeal of extreme Protestantism’ began to arrive. These missionaries, soon through letters, reports and stories, created a very distorted image about the people and culture in India. They were imbued with the western ‘imperial sentiments’ and the sense of cultural superiority and agreed with Charles Grant, the spokesman of the Evangelicals in England, that it was not any inborn weakness that made Hindu degenerate but the nature of their religion. For the evangelicals India was in darkness and would need the light present in the western world.
Claudius Buchanan another spokesman of the evangelicals who had been a missionary in India said: “The missionaries asserted that since God laid upon Britain the solemn duty of evangelizing India, the Government should not hesitate to throw its weight into the struggle. They demanded above all open Government patronage of Christian education and vigorous warfare upon the abuses associated with Hindu religion”.
The Evangelicals and other mission societies made a combined attempt to change the policy of the British Government and demanded the introduction of legal and social reforms in India. It was thus that William Bentick in March 1835 issued his resolution intended mainly to promote European literature and science and utilize funds mainly for English education. The study of Indian literature and oriental works was admitted to be of little intrinsic value and the opinion was that these literatures inculcate the most serious errors on the subjects. Also the customs and traditions and the religious beliefs of the subject people were considered by the missionary educators and their societies in England as a sign of depravity and futility. The remedy was the introduction of English education.
Alexander Duff, Scottish missionary and leading educator thought that though Hindu philosophical discourse contained lofty terms in its religious vocabulary what they conveyed were only vain, foolish and wicked conceptions. According to Duff, Hinduism spread like a dark universe where all life dies and death lives. The Christian task for him was to do everything possible to demolish such a gigantic fabric of idolatry and superstition. Needless to say, such an attitude prevented any positive encounter between Christianity and Indian culture.
Duff, Buchanan, Trevelyan, Macaulay and others had great influence on the missionary thinking. The missionaries and civil servants who came to India were so prejudiced that they did not see anything good in India society.
The missionaries and their societies subscribed to the view that civilizing the Indian people would prepare the primitive religious people to embrace Christianity. Missions were unwilling to understand the complexities of Indian cultural variants. Deeply entrenched in them was a sense of superiority of European civilization and that coloured their approach to people of other cultures and religious faiths. English education was a means towards this goal. That is to facilitate change from exterior to interior, from trade to religion, a cultural revolution for the betterment of the natives by disseminating knowledge of Christianity and make them loyal to the British.
The evangelical supporters of Anglican mission were far more interested in the dissemination of the Bible and baptismal statistics than in any measure for the general enlightenment of India.
The primary interest of the Raj was to keep control over India. The dominant interest of missions was to work for the conversion of Indians to Christianity. But in the colonial situation they found themselves in need of one another and so mutual support was but natural.
Although the missionaries worked hard and suffered a lot for bringing education and awareness of social justice to the people living in the rural areas of India, as they were associated with the colonial-imperial powers, the significance of their selfless service was either overlooked or misunderstood.

Positive outcome of missionary activities in India

Gandhiji held the view that the work of Missionaries quickened the task of Hindu reformers to set down our own house in order. The missionaries’ zeal to convert Hindus and the realization that they were specially targeting the sections which had been trodden down, lent an urgency to the determination of reformers to work for the uplift and integration of these sections into the rest of the Hindu society. One example to this effect was that Missionaries took up the cause of leprosy elimination. The work they undertook set the example, which was later followed on by others in India.
Generations of young man and women received modern education, many of whom were endowed with the ideals of service and uprightness and rectitude because of the educational institutions maintained by these missionary societies. Lakhs of people were saved and restored to normal health by hospitals set up by the Church-affiliated organizations, namely the Missionaries, The Christian Medial College at Vellore stands as a distinct example of which.
The standards of living of the tribals was raised and they were able to carve out a living with the aid of the Missionaries.
Educational Reforms imbibed in the Missionaries a unifying spirit in the Indians and they came together to fight for the cause as a united nation.

Negative impact of missionary activities in India

Where the Missionaries educated the Indians their shortcomings, they completely destroyed the self confidence and the self-respect of the natives. On such instance of which is reflected when Swami Vivekananda wrote, “The child is taken to school and the first thing he learns is that his father is a fool,the second thing that his grandfather is a lunatic, the third thing that all his teachers are hypocrites, the fourth that all his sacred books are a mass of lies. By the time he reaches sixteen, he is a mass of negation, lifeless and boneless…”
The mass conversion led to degradation of Indian Culture and a conflict between the classes themselves originated.
The educational inequalities made the so-educated Indians contempt the fellow Indian and the following quote by Charles Trevelyan is an illustration to prove that. “A generation is growing up which repudiates idols. A young Hindu, who had received a liberal English education, was forced by his family to attend the shrine of kali, upon which he took off his cap to ‘Madam Kali’, made her a low bow, and hoped ‘her lady ship was well’…”

Analysis of Christian Missionary

The missionaries, however, had come to India in obedience to Jesus Christ. Christ claimed that he was “the light to the world.” His plan of bringing light to the world involved sending His disciples into “all the world” as “light.” Therefore, to challenge everything that appeared “darkness” was a necessary part of the true Christian Mission.
The claims made by the Christian Missionaries also tend to highlight their actual interests, which are not hidden. They laid that Brahmanism tried hard to retain the monopoly of the religion with itself in India. It neither shared its own rich language with others, nor did it develop the languages of the people. India was still, at the time of advent of the Christian Missionaries, an ‘under-developed’ country because Brahmanism did not develop our languages. It was therefore a task laid for the Christian Missionaries to perform.
It is indisputably agreed that Brown, Buchanan and Carey were using a secular College (at Fort William) meant for training secular administrators, for translating the Bible and imparting a missionary spirit to administrators. They had the full backing of the Governor General and support of some of the directors of the Company, the objective being to give stability to the Government in India and to Christianize the Government. For 150 years, even as they served the interests of British imperialism, the Church tried to orient its Indian adherents away from Indian nationalism. The Collected Works contain several accounts in which Missionaries acknowledge to Mahatma Gandhi that the institutions and services were indeed incidental to the aim of gathering a fuller harvest of converts for the Church. There activities were also admonished by Swami Vivekananda as taking Spiritual Advantage of famines and Cholera.
The 1911 Census Reports on Bengal Bihar, Orissa and Sikkim state that converts from among the four tribes- Oraons, Mundas, Kharis and santhals- accounted for nearly nine-tenth of Christian Converts. The speech delivered to the Baptist Missionary Society in London in April 1883 by Sir Richard Temple stated that ‘every Christian is duty bound to spread the religion; that the heaviest responsibility in this regard had fallen upon the British- that Buddhism and Hinduism are dying and dead; that the tribals ought to be made the special focus of the exertions of the missionary and in the moral responsibilities before God and man, India was a country which of all others the Christians in Britain were bound to enlighten with Eternal truth.’

Christian missionary activities in India

Drain of wealth

The constant flow of wealth from India to England for which India did not get an adequate economic, commercial or material return has been described by Indian national leaders and economists as ‘drain’ of wealth from India. The colonial government was utilizing Indian resources- revenues, agriculture, and industry not for developing India but for its utilization in Britain. If these resources been utilised within India then they could have been invested and the income of the people would have increased.
The drain of wealth was interpreted as an indirect tribute extracted by imperial Britain from India year after year.

Background:

In the mercantilist concept an economic drain takes place if gold and silver flow out of the country as a consequence of an adverse balance of trade. In the 50 years before the battle of Plassey, the East India Company had imported bullion worth £ 20 million into India to balance the exports over imports from India. British government adopted a series of measures to restrict or prohibit the imports of Indian textiles into England.
Apart from other measures, in 1720 the British government forbade the wear or use of Indian silks and calicoes in England on pain of a penalty on the weaver and the seller.

Early Drain of wealth:

After Plassey the situation was reversed and the drain of wealth took an outward as England gradually acquired monopolistic control over the Indian economy.
So, the ‘Drain of wealth’ from India to England started after 1757 (Battle of Plassey), when the Company acquired political power and the servants of the Company a ‘privileged status’ and, therefore, acquired wealth through dastak, dastur, nazarana and private trade.
After the East India Company extended its territorial aggression in India and began to administer territories and acquired control over the surplus revenues of India, the Company had a recurring surplus which accrued from:

profits from oppressive land revenue policy,
profits from its trade resulting from monopolistic control over Indian markets,
exactions made by the Company’s officials.

This entire ‘surplus’ was used by Company as an “investment” i.e. for making purchases of exportable items in India and elsewhere. Against the exports of goods made out of this ‘investment’, India did not get anything in return.
This is how there began the ‘Drain of Wealth ‘which was nothing but a unilateral transfer of fund; the Early nationalist leaders made this point central to their economic criticism of the British colonialism.

Dadabhai Naoroji’s theory of the Drain of Wealth

Dadabhai Naoroji was the first man to say that internal factors were not the reasons of poverty in India but poverty was caused by the colonial rule that was draining the wealth and prosperity of India. The drain of wealth was the portion of India’s wealth and economy that was not available to Indians.
The Drain of Wealth theory was systemically initiated by Dadabhai Naoroji in 1867 and further analysed and developed by R.P. Dutt, M.G Ranade etc
In 1867, Dadabhai Naoroji put forward the ‘drain of wealth’ theory in which he stated that the Britain was completely draining India. He mentioned this theory in his book Poverty and Un-British Rule in India. He put forward the idea that Britain was draining and bleeding India and that, too, for nothing.
Further in his book , he stated the loss of 200-300 million pounds of revenue to Britain. Dadabhai Naoroji considered it as a major evil of British in India.
Naoroji observed in 1880,“It is not the pitiless operations of economic laws, but it is thoughtless and pitiless action of the British policy; it is pitiless eating of India’s substance in India and further pitiless drain to England, in short it is pitiless perversion of Economic Laws by the sad bleeding to which India is subjected, that is destroying India.”
On the footsteps of Dadabhai Naoroji, R. C. Dutt also promoted the same theory by keeping it as a major theme of his book Economic History in India.
M.G Ranade published books on Indian economics. He also talked about drain of wealth and saw the need for heavy industry for economic progress and believed in Western education as a vital element to the foundation of an Indian nation.
John Sullivan, President of the Board of Revenue, Madras, had wrote—”Our system acts very much like a sponge, drawing up all the good things from the banks of the Ganges, and squeezing them down on the banks of the Thames.”

Dadabhai Naoroji gave several factors that caused external drain. These are:

Home charges refer to the interest on public debt raised in England at comparatively higher rates; expenditure incurred in England by the Secretary of State on behalf of India;
Annuities on account of railway and irrigation works;
Indian office expences including pensions to retired officials who had worked in India or England, pensions to army and navals etc.
Remittances to England by Europeans to their families
Remittances for purchase of British Goods for consumption of British employees in India.
Interest charges on public debt held in Britain
Also, trade as well as Indian labour was deeply undervalued.

Q. What were the constituents of drain of wealth?

The drain of wealth mainly consisted of the following:

Home Charges:

Home charges refer to the expenditure incurred in England by the Secretary of State on behalf of India. Before the Revolt of 1857 the Home charges varied from 10% to 13% of the average revenues of India. After the Revolt the proportion shot up to 24% in the period 1897-1901. In 1901-02, the Home charges amounted to £ 17.36 million. During 1921-22, the Home charges sharply increased to 40% of the total revenue of the Central Government.
The main constituents of Home charges were:

Dividend to the shareholders of the East India Company
Interest on Public Debt rose abroad: The East Indian Company had piled up a public debt to dislodge Indian rulers from their Principalities. By 1900 the public debt had risen to £ 224 million. Only part of the debt was raised for productive purposes i.e., for construction of railways, irrigation facilities and public works.
Civil and Military charges: These included payments towards pensions and furloughs of British officers in the civil and military departments in India, expenses on India Office establishment in London, payments to the British war office etc. All these charges were solely due to India’s subjection to foreign rule.
Store purchases in England: The Secretary of State and the Government of India purchased stores for the Military, Civil and Marine Departments in the English market. The annual average expenditure on stores varied from 10% to 12% of the Home charges between 1861-1920.

Council Bills:

Council Bills were the actual means through which money was transferred (It is not a legislation). This also caused drain of wealth. We will try to understand what is Council Bills (Even if you don’t understand, you can leave it).
Council Bills are best explained by quoting from Sir John Strachey’s lectures given in 1888. ‘The Secretary of State draws bills on the Government treasury in India, and it is mainly through these bills, which are paid in India out of the public revenues, that the merchant obtains the money that he requires in India and the Secretary of State the money that he requires in England.’
In other words, would be British purchasers of Indian exports bought Council Bills from the Secretary of State in return for sterling (which was used to meet the Home Charges). The Council Bills were then exchanged for rupees from the Government of India’s revenues. Next the rupees were used to buy Indian goods for export. Conversely, British officials and businessmen in India bought Sterling Bills in return for their profits in rupees from British owned Exchange Banks; the London branches of these tanks paid in pounds for such bills with the money coming from Indian exports” purchased through-the rupees obtained through sale of Sterling Bills.

Interest on Foreign Capital Investments:

Interest and profits on private foreign capital were another important leakage from the national income stream. Finance capital entered the Indian market in the 20th century.
Foreign capitalists were the least interested in industrial development of India. Rather they exploited Indian resources for their own benefit and Infact thwarted indigenous capitalist enterprise by fair and foul means.

Foreign Banking

For banking, insurance and shipping services India had to make huge payments. Apart from constituting a drain on Indian resources, unrestricted activities of these foreign companies stunted the growth of Indian enterprise in these spheres.

Q. What were the Impact of the Drain Theory in the Growth of Economic Nationalism?

Of all the national movements in colonial countries, the Indian national movement was the most deeply and firmly rooted in an understanding of the nature and character of colonial economic domination and exploitation.
Its early leaders, known as the moderates were the first in the 19^t^h century to develop an economic critique of colonialism.
The focal point of the nationalist critique of colonialism was the drain theory. The nationalist leaders pointed out that a large part of India’s capital and wealth was being transferred or drained to Britain in the form of salaries and pensions of British civil and military officials working in India, interests on loans taken by the Indian government, profits of the British capitalists in India and the home charges or expenses of the Indian Government in Britain.
This drain took the form of an excess of exports over the imports for which India got no economic or national return. According to the nationalist calculations, this chain amounted to one-half of the government revenues more than the entire land revenue collection and over one-third of India’s total savings.
The acknowledged high priest drain theory was Dadabhai Naroji. It was in May 1867 that Dadabhai Naroji put forward the idea that Britain was draining and bleeding India. From then on for nearly half a century he launched a raging campaign against the drain, hammering at the theme through every possible form of public communication. R.C. Dutt made the drain the major theme of his Economic History of India.
He protested that taxation raised by a king is like the moisture sucked up by the sun, to be returned to earth as fertilizing rain, but the moisture raised from the Indian soil now descends as fertilizing rain largely on other lands, not on India.
The drain theory incorporated all the threads of the nationalist critique of colonialism, for the drain denuded India of the productive capital its agriculture and industries so desperately needed. Indeed the drain theory was comprehensive, inter-related and integrated economic analysis of the colonial situation.
The drain theory had far reaching impact on the growth of the economic nationalism in India. Banking on this theory the early nationalists attributed the all encompassing poverty not as a visitation from God or nature. It was seen as man-made, and therefore capable of being explained and removed.
Based on the drain theory of Dadabhai Naroji, the nationalists came to see the foreign capital in perilous terms. They came to regard foreign capital as an unmitigated evil, which did not develop a country but exploited and impoverished it. Dadabhai Naroji saw foreign capital to be representing despoliation and exploitation of Indian resources.
It was further argued that instead of encouraging and augmenting Indian capital, foreign capital replaced and suppressed it, led to the drain of capital from India and further strengthened the British hold over Indian economy.
According to them, the political consequences of foreign capital investment were no less harmful for the penetration of foreign capital led to its political subjugation. Foreign capital investment created vested interests which demanded security for investors and therefore perpetuated foreign rule.
The drain by taking form of excess of exports over imports, led to progressive decline and ruin of India’s traditional handicrafts. The British administrators pointed with pride to the rapid growth of India’s foreign trade and rapid construction of railways as instruments of India’s development as well as proof of its growing prosperity.
However, because of their negative impact on indigenous industries, foreign trade and railways represented not economic development but colonization and under development of economy. What mattered in case of foreign trade was not its volume but its pattern or nature of goods internationally exchanged and their impact on national industry and agriculture. And this pattern had undergone drastic changes during the 19^t^h century, the bias being overwhelmingly towards the export of raw materials and the import of manufactured goods.
According to early nationalists, drain constituted a major obstacle to rapid industrialization especially when it was in terms of policy of free trade. The policy of free trade was on the one hand ruining India’s handicraft industries and on the other forcing the infant and underdeveloped modern industries into a premature and unequal and hence unfair and disastrous competitive with the highly organized and developed industries of the west. The tariff policies of the Government convinced the nationalists that the British economic policies in India were guided by the interest of British capitalist class.
For the early nationalists the drain also took the form of colonial pattern of finance. Taxes were so raised as they averred, so as to overburden the poor while letting the rich especially the foreign capitalists and bureaucrats to go scot-free. Even on expenditure side, the emphasis was on serving Britain’s imperial needs while the developmental and welfare departments were starred.
By attacking the drain the nationalists were able to call into question, in an uncompromising manner the economic essence of imperialism, the drain theory and the agitation by nationalists on economical hegemony of alien rulers over India. The secret of the British power in India lay not only in physical force but also in moral force that is in the belief that the British were the patrons of the common people of India. The nationalist drain theory gradually undermined these moral foundations.
The economic welfare of India was offered as the chief justification for the British rule by the imperialist rulers and spokesmen. The Indian nationalists by their forceful argument asserted that India was economically backward precisely because the British were ruling it in the interest of British trade; industry and finance were the inevitable consequences of the British rule.
The corrosion of faith in the British rule inevitably spread to the political field. In course of time, the nationalist leaders linked nearly every important question with the politically subordinated status of the country. Step by step, they began to draw the conclusion that since the British administration was only the handmade to the task of exploitation, pro-Indian and developmental policies would be followed only by a regime in which Indians had control over political power.
The result was that even though the early nationalists remained moderates and professed loyalty to British rule, they cut at the political roots of the empire and sowed in the land, the seeds of disaffection and disloyalty and even sedition. Gradually, the nationalists veered from demanding reforms to begin demanding self government or swaraj.
The nationalists of the twentieth century were relying heavily on the main themes of their economic critique of colonialism. These themes were then to reverberate in Indian villages, towns and cities. Based on this firm foundation, the later nationalists went on to stage powerful mass agitations and mass movements. The drain theory thus laid the seeds for subsequent nationalism to flower and mature.

Drain of wealth

BRITISH- NAWAB CONFLICTS IN BENGAL: THE BATTLE OF PLASSEY to THE BATTLE OF BUXAR

BRITISH – NAWAB CONFLICTS IN BENGAL: THE BATTLE OF PLASSEY to THE BATTLE OF BUXAR

The Battle of Plassey

The Battle of Plassey was a decisive victory of the British East India Company over the Nawab of Bengal Siraj-ud-daulah on 23 June 1757. The battle established the Company rule in Bengal which expanded over much of India for the next hundred years. The battle took place at Plassey on the banks of the Bhagirathi River, about 150 km north of Calcutta and south of Murshidabad, then capital of Bengal.

Background and Causes of Battle

By the early 18th century, the British East India Company had a strong presence in India with the three main stations of Fort St. George in Madras, Fort William in Calcutta and Bombay Castle in western India. These stations were independent presidencies governed by a President and a Council, appointed by the Court of Directors in England. The British adopted a policy of allying themselves with various princes and Nawabs, promising security against usurpers and rebels. The Nawabs often gave them concessions in return for the security.
By then, all rivalry had ceased between the British East India Company and the Dutch or Portuguese. The French had also established an East India Company under Louis XIV and had two important stations in India – Chandernagar in Bengal and Pondicherry on the Carnatic coast, both governed by the presidency of Pondicherry. The French were a late comer in India trade, but they quickly established themselves in India and were poised to overtake Britain for control.
Alwardi Khan ascended to the throne of the Nawab of Bengal in 1740 after his army attacked and captured the capital of Bengal, Murshidabad. Alivardi’s attitude to the Europeans in Bengal was strict. During his wars with the Marathas, he allowed the strengthening of fortifications by the Europeans and the construction of the Maratha Ditch in Calcutta by the British. On the other hand, he collected large amounts of money from them for the upkeep of his war.
(Maratha Ditch was a three-mile long moat excavated by British around Calcutta in 1742, as a protection against possible attacks by Marathas. The “natives” had to pay for the construction of the Maratha Ditch to protect the British seat of power, Fort William.The Marathas, however, never came to the city. Later, the ditch proved to be useless when the Nawab of Bengal, Siraj ud-Daulah, came and ransacked the British settlement in 1756. It was mostly filled up in 1799 to build the Circular Road. The area bound by the ditch was considered to be the original town of Calcutta.)
Alwardi Khan was well-informed of the situation in southern India, where the British and the French had started a proxy war using the local princes and rulers. He did not wish such a situation to transpire in his province and thus exercised caution in his dealings with the Europeans.
However, there was continual friction; the British always complained that they were prevented from the full enjoyment of the farman of 1717 issued by Mughal Emperor Farrukhsiyar. (British East India Company had purchased duty-free trading rights in all of Bengal for a mere three thousand rupees a year from Farrukhsiyar. It is said that the Company’s surgeon, William Hamilton, cured Farrukhsiyar and the Emperor was moved to grant trading rights to the Company.)
The British used to give passes to native traders to trade custom-free and levied large duties on goods coming to their districts – actions which were detrimental to the Nawab’s revenue.
In April 1756, Alwardi Khan died and was succeeded by his twenty-three-year-old grandson, Siraj-ud-daulah. His personality was said to be a combination of a ferocious temper and a feeble understanding. He was particularly suspicious of the large profits made by the European companies in India.
The British wanted to occupy the rich and prosperous region of Bengal by subjugating the power of the Nawab and the other European powers.
Fort William was established to protect the East India Company’s trade in the city of Calcutta, the principal town of the Bengal Presidency. With the possibility of conflict with French forces, the British began building up the fort’s strengths and defences. Siraj ud-Daulah, was unhappy with the company’s interference in the internal affairs of his province and perceived a threat to its independence and immediately ordered them to stop such activities as they were doing it without permission. When the British refused to cease their constructions, the Nawab led a detachment to surround the fort and factory of Cossimbazar and took several British officials as prisoners, before moving to Calcutta. The defenses of Calcutta were weak and negligible especially against the Nawab’s force of nearly 50,000 infantry and cavalry.
The city was occupied on 16 June by Siraj’s force and the fort surrendered.The garrison’s commander organised an escape, leaving behind 146 soldiers under the command of Holwell, a senior East India Company bureaucrat who had been a military surgeon.The fort fell on 20 June.

The Black Hole of Calcutta

The Black Hole of Calcutta was a small dungeon in the old Fort William in Calcutta, where troops of the Nawab of Bengal, Siraj ud-Daulah, held British prisoners of war after the capture of the fort on 20 June 1756.
One of the prisoners, Holwell, claimed that following the fall of the fort, British and Anglo-Indian soldiers and civilians were held overnight in conditions so cramped that 123 prisoners died out of 146 held from suffocation, heat exhaustion and crushing. However, the precise number of deaths, and the accuracy of Holwell’s claims, have been the subject of controversy.

The Holwell’s account

Holwell wrote about the events after the fall of the fort. He met with Siraj, who assured him “on the word of a soldier that no harm should come to us“. After seeking a place in the fort to confine the 146 prisoners (including Holwell), at 8 pm, the jailers locked the prisoners in the fort’s prison which was 14 by 18 feet in size. When the “Black Hole” was opened the next morning at 6 am, only 23 people were alive.
Regarding responsibility, Holwell believed that it was the result of revenge and resentment in the breasts of the lower Jemmaatdaars, to whose custody we were delivered, for the number of their order killed during the siege. So Siraj did not order it and was not informed about it.
After the prison was opened, the corpses were thrown into a ditch. Holwell and three others were sent as prisoners to Murshidabad; the rest of the survivors obtained their liberty after the victory of a relief expedition under Robert Clive.
As a result of Holwell’s account, Robert Clive was sent in October to retaliate.

Controversies

Some argue that, because so many non-combatants were present in the fort when it fell, the number who died cannot be stated with any precision.
In 1915, British scholar J.H. Little challenged Holwell’s claims in his article, “The ‘Black Hole’ — The Question of Holwell’s Veracity”, arguing that Holwell was an unreliable witness and his veracity is questionable.
A floor area of 267 square feet could not contain 146 European adults.
Absence of any independent confirmation: It is stated that apart from Holwell’s account no other source mentioned such an incident. Given its nature, it seems very unlikely that all traces of such a thing having happened would have disappeared.
Only forty-three of the garrison were listed as missing from Fort William after the incident and therefore the maximum number of deaths could only be forty-three. However, this is also subject to the objection that according to the Holwell account itself, not all the prisoners would have been listed as members of the garrison.

Response of British

When news of the fall of Calcutta broke in Madras on 16 August 1756, the Council immediately sent out an expeditionary force from Madras under Colonel Clive and Admiral Watson.
A letter from the Council of Fort St. George, states that “the object of the expedition was not merely to re-establish the British settlements in Bengal, but also to obtain ample recognition of the Company’s privileges and reparation for its losses” without the risk of war. It also states that any signs of dissatisfaction and ambition among the Nawab’s subjects must be supported.
Clive assumed command of the land forces, consisting of 900 Europeans and 1500 sepoys while Watson commanded a naval squadron. The fleet entered the Hooghly River in December.
On 29 December, the force dislodged the enemy from the fort of Budge Budge. Clive and Watson then moved against Calcutta on 2 January 1757 and the garrison of 500 men surrendered after offering a scanty resistance.
With Calcutta recaptured, the Council was reinstated and a plan of action against the Nawab was prepared. The fortifications of Fort William were strengthened and a defensive position was prepared in the north-east of the city

The Bengal Campaign

On 9 January 1757, a force of 650 men, under Captain Coote and Major Kilpatrick stormed and sacked the town of Hooghly, 37 km north of Calcutta. On learning of this attack, the Nawab raised his army and marched on Calcutta, arriving with the main body on 3 February and encamping beyond the Maratha Ditch.
Despite their successes, the British were cut off from trade and resupply while the war lasted. It was in Nawab’s interest to prolong it. Instead, he made the strategic mistake of trying to finish off the war quickly. He brought his army – with 40,000 horses, 60,000 soldiers on foot and 50 elephants – up to Calcutta and began preparing to attack the city. Clive decided to launch a pre-emptive attack. It proved to be a winning decision. Nawab’s army broke up and many fled. The British lost 57 men, the Nawab 1,300. Faced with a surprising defeat, Siraj-uddaula capitulated and decided to negotiate a deal with the British. On 9 February a peace Treaty of Alinagar was signed.

Treaty of Alinagar (Feb. 9, 1757)

The attack scared the Nawab into concluding the Treaty of Alinagar with the Company. The treaty was named after the short-lived title ‘Alinagar’ given to Calcutta by Siraj after his capture of the city.
The Treaty of Alinagar was signed on February 9, 1757 between Robert Clive and Siraj Ud Daula. Based on the terms of the accord:

Nawab agreed to restore the Company’s factories.
Nawab would recognize all the 1717 provisions of Mughal Emperor Farrukh Siyar’s firman.
All British goods that passed through Bengal would be exempt from duties.
British would not be hindered from fortifying Calcutta, as well as mint coins in Calcutta.

The Nawab withdrew his army back to his capital, Murshidabad. The signing of the treaty was one of the events leading up to the famous Battle of Plassey.
For the moment there was peace, but it wasn’t to last. Clive had come to Bengal not just with the objective of retaking Calcutta. Even before setting sail for Bengal, he had written, “this expedition will not end with the retaking of Calcutta only – and that the Company’s estate in these parts will be settled in a better and more lasting conditions than ever.”
After displaying extraordinary skills on the battlefield, Clive was now going to employ his other talent – trickery. In the coming months, he set about plotting the demise of all the potential rivals to the British power in Bengal. The intention was to secure Company’s profits, not to rule Bengal. But inadvertently, it will set about a chain reaction of events resulting in British as masters of one of wealthiest parts of the world, oceans away from their homeland.

Sacking Chandranagore

Concerned by the approach of Bussy to Bengal and the Seven Years’ War in Europe, the Company turned its attention to the French threat in Bengal. Clive planned to capture the French town of Chandernagar, 32 km north of Calcutta. Clive needed to know whose side the Nawab would intervene on if he attacked Chandernagar. The Nawab sent evasive replies and Clive construed this to be assent to the attack.
Clive commenced hostilities on the town and fort of Chandernagar on 14 March. The French expected assistance from the Nawab’s forces from Hooghly, but the governor of Hooghly, Nand Kumar had been bribed to remain inactive and prevent the Nawab’s reinforcement of Chandernagar. The fort was well-defended, but Admiral Watson’s squadron forced the blockade in the channel on 23 March, On 24 March, a flag of truce was shown by the French.
After plundering Chandernagar, Clive decided to ignore his orders to return to Madras and remain in Bengal. He moved his army to the north of the town of Hooghly.
The Nawab was infuriated on learning of the attack on Chandernagar. His former hatred of the British returned, but he now felt the need to strengthen himself by alliances against the British. The Nawab was plagued by fear of attack from the north by the Afghans under Ahmad Shah Durrani and from the west by the Marathas. Therefore, he could not deploy his entire force against the British.
Siraj started secret negotiations with Jean Law, chief of the French factory at Cossimbazar, and Bussy. The Nawab also moved a large division of his army under Rai Durlabh to Plassey, on the island of Cossimbazar.

Conspiracy

In Europe, the Seven Years’ War (1756–1763) was on between France and England and in a mirror of their European rivalry, the French East India Company sent a small contingent to fight against the British in favor of Nawab. Siraj-ud-Daulah had a numerically superior force. The British, worried about being outnumbered and also French help to Nawab, formed a conspiracy with Siraj-ud-Daulah’s demoted army chief Mir Jafar, along with others such as Yar Lutuf Khan, Jagat Seths (Mahtab Chand and Swarup Chand), Omichund and Rai Durlabh.
Popular discontent against the Nawab flourished in his own court. The Seths, the traders of Bengal, were in perpetual fear for their wealth under the reign of Siraj, contrary to the situation under Alivardi’s reign.
William Watts, the Company representative at the court of Siraj, informed Clive about a conspiracy at the court to overthrow the ruler. The conspirators included Mir Jafar, Rai Durlabh, Yar Lutuf Khan Jagat Seths and Omichund, a merchant and several officers in the army.
When communicated in this regard by Mir Jafar, Clive referred it to the select committee in Calcutta on 1 May. The committee passed a resolution in support of the alliance. A treaty was drawn between the British and Mir Jafar to raise him to the throne of the Nawab in return for support to the British in the field of battle and the bestowal of large sums of money upon them as compensation for the attack on Calcutta.
Mir Jafar and the Seths desired that the confederacy between the British and himself be kept secret from Omichund, but when he found out about it, he threatened to betray the conspiracy if his share was not increased to three million rupees. Hearing of this, Clive suggested an expedient to the Committee. He suggested that two treaties be drawn – the real one on white paper, containing no reference to Omichund and the other on red paper, containing Omichund’s desired stipulation, to deceive him.

Battle of Plassey

Bengal in 1750s. This map is not accurate; it is only intended to give an estimation. Bengal borders are modern-day, not a reflection of Bengal in 1750s.

On 14 June, Clive sent a declaration of war to Siraj. On 15 June, after ordering an attack on Mir Jafar’s palace in suspicion of his alliance with the British, Siraj obtained a promise from Mir Jafar to not join the British in the field of battle. He then ordered his entire army to move to Plassey, but the troops refused to quit the city until the arrears of their pay were released. The delay caused the army to reach Plassey only by 21 June.
On 23rd June 1757 was the Battle of Plassey fought between the armies of Siraj-ud-daula (with French help also) and Clive. The confrontation came on a cloudy morning north of the village of Plassey on the bank of the Bhagirathi River. There could be no comparison between the respective forces of the enemies. The Nawab’s army contained 50,000 infantry, 28,000 Cavalry and Clive’s army consisted only 3,000 men including English Soldiers. Out of three division of Nawab, One division was commanded by Mir Jafar. From the beginning of the battle, Mir Jafar, Rai Durlabh and Yar Lutuf Khan assembled their troops near the battlefield but made no move to actually join the battle.
Only two generals Mohan Lai and Mir Madan were fighting desperately on behalf of the Nawab. Mir Madan fell dead on the field and thus the Nawab lost courage. For hours the course of the war remained undecided and uncertain. Mir Zafar advised the Nawab to send order to Mohan Lai to stop war and return back. Siraj, who distrusted his generals and had already been warned of impending defeat by his astrologer (who had possibly been bribed), lost his nerve when Mir Jafar advised retreat. Siraj fled on a fast camel. His demoralized army followed suit.
Siraj-ud-daula fled from the battle field for life but was killed by Miran the son of Mirzafar.
Mir Jafar now entered Murshidabad as the new Nawab.

—————————————–

Q. “The battle of Plasssey was not a great battle but a great betrayal.” Comment.

—————————————–

Aftermath

According to the treaty drawn between the British and Mir Jafar, the British acquired all the land within the Maratha Ditch and 600 yards beyond it and the Zamindari of 24 Parganas of Bengal.
Besides confirming the firman of 1717, the treaty also required the restitution, including donations to the navy squadron, army and committee, of 22 million rupees to the British for their losses.
However, since the wealth of Siraj-ud-daulah proved to be far less than expected, a council held with the Seths and Rai Durlabh on 29 June decided that one half of the amount was to be paid immediately – two-thirds in coin and one third in jewels and other valuables.
As the council ended, it was revealed to Omichand that he would receive nothing with regard to the treaty, hearing which he went insane.
In 1760 Clive returned home. His fame had spread all over England as the Victor of Plassey and the founder of British rule in India. The British Government honoured him with the title of Lord.
It must be recognized that at this point the British were neither in control of Bengal, nor did they have desire to do so. All they wanted were more trading rights. While British had played an important role, it was a coup in which Mir Jafar had taken power from Siraj-uddaula. Jafar still remained the man with the largest army in Bengal. Moreover, Clive had no intention of ruling Bengal, which made no sense for a company to do. “So large a sovereignty may possibly be an object too extensive for a mercantile company,” Clive wrote.

Effects and Significance of Battle of Plassey

(Political, Economic, Military impact)

Significance of Battle of Plassey lies in the fact that Bengal came under the oppression of the British. The battle was not important from the military view-point. It was a mere conflict. No military superiority was shown by the English army. The Nawab’s camp was deserted that lead to victory of Lord Clive. Lord Clive’s diplomacy excelled. He won the battle almost without fighting. According to some historians: it was a transaction in which the bankers of Bengal and Mir Jafar sold out Nawab to the English.”
The battle of Plassey followed the subsequent plunder of Bengal as Bengal was placed at the disposal of the English vast resources. After Plassey a huge sum was given to the Company. Bengal was considered as the most prosperous province, industrially and commercially. The vast resources of Bengal helped the Britishers to conquer the Deccan and extend their influence over North India.
Before the Battle of Plassey English Company was just one of the European Companies trading in Bengal and huge taxes were imposed by the Nawabs of Bengal. The tax and wealth earned from here helped the British to balance all of their trade liabilities. After Plassey the English virtually monopolised Bengal’s trade and commerce. The French was unable to recover their lost position. In 1759, the British defeated a larger French garrison at Masulipatam, securing the Northern Circars. The Dutch was also defeated. From commerce the English managed to exert an exclusive control on the administration too. Plassey proved as a battle that had far-reaching consequences in the fate of India.
The Bengal plunder began to arrive in London and the effects appears to have been instantaneous, for all authorities agree that the the ‘Industrial Revolution’ began with the year 1770 after Plassey was fought in 1757.
The condition of the common of Bengal gradually deteriorated due to the weakness of the Nawab. Lawlessness and continuous economic exploitation of the servants of the company broke the backbone of Bengalis who once upon a time used to lead a prosperous life.
British built and trained an army with native Indian Sepoys who then fulfilled the ambition of further colonization. The British East India company also wanted to protect the rich colony of India for which it acquired buffer colonies in Singapore, Penang, Burma, Nepal, Malacca etc. The British advancement in Asia was also aided by superior military and modern artillery and Navy.
The Battle of Plessey ushered in a new era in the history of India. It was a turning point not only in the history of Bengal but also in the history of whole of India. It has, therefore, been rightly remarked that the Battle of Plessey marked the end of one epoch and the beginning of another.
The conflict at Plassey was also crucial to the East India Company’s triumph over its French rivals.

Mir Jafar (1757-1760)

After the Battle of Plessey Mir Jafar became the Nawab of Bengal in name only. Mir Jafar was dependent on the Britishers so as to maintain his position in Bengal as well as protection against foreign invasions.An English army of 6,000 troops was maintained in Bengal to help the Nawab. All real powers passed into the hands of the Company.
He was an incompetent person. So through out his reign real power remained in the hands of the English. He had to face great financial crisis, because the servants of the company began to extract money from him in various ways. He had also committed to pay a huge amount of money to Clive as a mark of gratitude.
The English company also pressed him for payment of instalments. Thus, Mir Jafar became restless under the great financial pressure and growing supremacy of the English. In the meanwhile Dutch hatched out a conspiracy with Mir Jafar against the English in 1759.

Battle of Chinsura / Bedara (1759)

Mir Jafar felt that his position as a subordinate to the British could not be tolerated. He started encouraging the Dutch to advance against the British and eject them from Bengal. In late 1759, the Dutch sent seven large ships and 1400 men from Java to Bengal under the pretext of reinforcing their Bengal settlement of Chinsura even though Britain and Holland were not officially at war.
Clive, however, initiated immediate offensive operations and defeated the much larger Dutch force on 25 November 1759 in the Battle of Chinsura. Clive also repelled the aggression of the Dutch, and avenged the massacre of Amboyna (The Amboyna massacre was the 1623 torture and execution on Ambon Island (Maluku, Indonesia), of twenty men, ten of whom were in the service of the English East India Company, by agents of the Dutch East India Company, on accusations of treason. It was the result of the intense rivalry between the East India companies of England and the United Provinces in the spice trade )
In the same year Ali Gohour, the eldest son of the Mughal Emperor, rose in revolt against his father. On his way to find out a shelter for himself he besieged Patna in Bihar with the help of Shuja-ud-daula, the Nawab of Oudh. Mir Jafar felt helpless to face Ali Gohour alone. He sought help from the English. With the help of the English Mir Jafar defeated the Mughal army. For the help Clive was given the right to realize revenue from South Calcutta, which was popularly known as Clive’s Jagir. By this arrangement Mir Jafar had to suffer further loss of rupees thirty thousand per annum.
When Clive returned to England due to ill-health, he was rewarded with an Irish peerage, as Lord Clive, Baron of Plassey and also obtained a seat in the British House of Commons.
After Clive’s departure the servants of the company became uncontrollable collectively and individually they began to acquire wealth by corrupt means. Mir Jafar became tired of payment and his treasury became empty.

Mir Kasim (1761- 1763)

Mir Jafar felt restless by the exacting attitude of the English in Bengal. He failed to meet further demands of the English with an empty treasury. As he was running short of fund his interest in the Government began to decline. The people of Bengal began to despise him for his inefficiency to maintain the administration smoothly. Under these circumstances the English planned to look for an alternative successor who was none but Mir Kasim, the son-in-law of Mir Jafar. He promised to pay the British more than Mir Jafar.
In the meanwhile, Clive had left for England in 1760 and Vansittart had become the governor of Bengal. He compelled Mir Jafar to abdicate in favor of his son-in-law of Mir Kasim, who was very much eager to become the Nawab of Bengal. As a mark of gratitude; he ceded Burdwan, Chittagaon and Midnapur districts to the members of the Council.
Mir Kasim was more talented, vigorous and ambitious than his father-in-law Mir Jafar. He ruled from 1761 to 1763. He did not appreciate the idea of being a mere puppet in the hands of the British. He always tried to remain away from their undue authority. It was for this reason that he shifted his capital from Murshidabad to Monghyr.
In order to fortify his position against the English, he reorganized his troops and set up factories for the manufacture of arms.
He trained his army in the western fashion and realized the arrears of the state in order to replenish his empty coffer.
In spite of several complaints of Vansittart, he did not reduce his military forces. All these measures of Mir Kasim gradually incurred displeasure of the English.

Dastak Abuse

Dastak was the trade permit sanctioned to the east india company by the Mughal government. Under the terms and conditions of farrukh siyar’s farman of 1717 the East India Company was entitled to trade in Bengal without paying the normal customs duty. Based on the right derived from the imperial farman, the company used to issue dastaks authorising their agents to trade customs-free within the province of Bengal.
According to the farman of 1717, this right of free trade covered by the dastaks was restricted to the company alone. This right, according to the farman, was not to be exercised by the company’s private traders. But in practice, the private traders of the company generally abused the free trade right by producing the dastak to the chowkies of the government. But the chowkidars had reasons to believe that most of the dastaks produced by company traders were produced just to cover their own private trade. The company sold dastaks at high price not only to European private traders but also to native merchants. Many corrupt British used there dastak for Indian traders in lieu of money which impacted revenue of nawab.
Consequently, the government was losing revenue on the one hand, and the native merchants were losing their business due to unequal competition with the company and private traders, on the other. Sirajuddaula’s policy against the abuse of dastak was also one of the important causes of his conflict with the company.
Mir Kasim opposed dastak and its misuse as other local merchants were required to pay up to 40% of their revenue as tax.
Being unable to persuade the company to behave as regards abusing dastak, Mir qasim finally abolished the inland duties altogether in order to save the local merchants from ruin. This upset the advantage that the British traders had been enjoying so far, and hostilities built up. Mir Qasim overran the Company offices in Patna in 1763, killing several Europeans including the Resident.
In 1758 Warren Hastings was made the British Resident in the Bengali capital of Murshidabad. Hastings was personally angered when he conducted an investigation into trading abuses in Bengal. He alleged some European and British-allied Indian merchants were taking advantage of the situation to enrich themselves personally. Widespread fraud was practised and illegal trading took place by figures who travelled under the unauthorised protection of the British flag, knowing that local custom officials would therefore be cowed into not interfering with them. Hastings felt this was bringing shame on Britain’s reputation, and he urged the ruling authorities in Calcutta to put an end to it. The Council considered his report but ultimately rejected Hastings’ proposals and he was fiercely criticised by other members, many of whom had themselves profited from the trade. Ultimately, little was done to stem the abuses and Hastings began to consider quitting his post and returning to Britain. His resignation was only delayed by the outbreak of fresh fighting in Bengal. Hastings resigned in December 1764 and sailed for Britain.

Battle of Buxar

The seeds of the Battle of Buxar were sown after the Battle of Plassey, when Mir Qasim became the Nawab of Bengal. The primary cause was the conflict between the English and Mir Qasim.
As we have seen, Mir Qasim was an able Nawab. The English wanted Mir to remain as a puppet in their hands. But, he always wanted to keep himself away from the British influence. He undertook some reformation, under which there was a reduction in expenditure on administration and palaces; fire locks and guns were manufactured, there was regular payment of salaries, new taxes were imposed and the capital was shifted from Monghyar to Murshidabad, which annoyed the British nobles and officers. He abolished taxes altogether de to abuse of dastak by British which infuriated British.
These situation led to a number of conflicts between him and the English. He was defeated in three successive battles (between June to September 1763) before the Battle of Buxar, which eventually compelled him to flee to Allahabad where he met Shuja-ud-Daulah.
In the meantime, after the acquisition of power as the Mughal Emperor, Shah Alam II also wanted to combine several states as one physically stronger empire, which included Bengal (present Bengal+Bihar+Orissa). But, he also could not overpower the British and was under the shelter of Oudh Nawab Shuja-ud-Daulah who always wanted to destroy the English supremacy in Bengal.
Thus, one of the main causes of hostility between the English and the three rulers was the share of Bengal. Mir Qasim, Shuja-ud-Daulah and Shah Alam II joined hands to fight against the English to establish their sovereignty over the whole of Bengal and reduce the power of the British.
The Battle of Buxar was fought on 23 October 1764 at the battleground Katkauli, 6 kilometres from Buxar, then within the territory of Bengal, between the forces of the British East India Company led by Hector Munro and the combined army of Mir Qasim (the Nawab of Bengal), Shuja-ud-Daulah (the Nawab of Awadh) and the Mughal Emperor Shah Alam II.
The Mughal camp was internally broken due to a quarrel between the Mughal Emperor Shah Alam II and Shuja-ud-Daula; Mir Qasim was reluctant to engage the British. The lack of basic co-ordination among the three desperate allies was responsible for their decisive debacle.
After the war, Mir Kasim fled to the North-West and died. Shah Alam II left Shuja-ud-Daulah and sought shelter in the British camp. Shuja-ud-Daulah tried to defeat the British till 1765 but was not successful. He later fled to Rohilkhand.
Clive was in England when Battle of Buxar was fought and won by the British. In 1765, Clive returned styled Lord Clive as Governor General of Bengal for the second time. By this time, the British had shown their military supremacy in India for, the Battle of Buxar was tough contested battle, than the Battle of Plassey which was won by deceit.
Battle of Buxar ended with Treaty of Allahabad.

Treaty of Allahabad (1765)

The important outcome of the Battle of Buxar was the Treaty of Allahabad.
Two separate treaties were signed at Allahabad:
First treaty was signed between East India Company (Lord Clive) and Mughal Emperor Shah Alam II, who had submitted to the British in the battle. As per this treaty:

Mughal Emperor granted Fiscal Rights (Diwani) or right to administer the territory and collect taxes to the East India Company at Bengal, Bihar and Orissa. These rights allowed the Company to collect revenue directly from the people of Bengal, Bihar and Orissa. Nizamat rights (police and judicial) were given to Nawab of Bengal.
In lieu of this Right, the Company gave an annual tribute of 26 Lakh Rupees to the Mughals
The districts of Kora and Allahabad were returned to Mughal Emperor.

Second treaty was signed between East India Company (Lord Clive) and Nawab of Awadh Shuja-ud-Daulah:

Awadh was returned to Shuja-ud-Daulah but Allahabad and Kora was taken from him.
The Nawab of Awadh paid 53 Lakhs rupees of war indemnity to the British.
The Zamindari of Banaras region was given to Balwant Rai.
An English Resident would be stationed at Lucknow. Nawab should bare all the expenses of this person.
Further, the Nawab entered into an offensive and defensive treaty with the Company binding him to render gratuitous military help to the Company in time of need and the Company to help the Nawab with the troops for the defence of his frontier on the latter agreeing to pay the cost of its maintenance.

Thus Clive, in person settled the fate of almost half of the Northern India.

Effect and Significance of the Battle of Buxar

The seeds of British imperialism sown at Plassey flowered after the Battle of Buxar, a fact that makes the latter battle historically more important. It finally consolidated British rule in Bengal, the Nawab was reduced to a mere figure-head, the Company started an unchecked plundering of the wealth of Bengal, the Nawab of Oudh turned to a submissive ally and the Mughal emperor was reduced to thriving on an allowance from the Company.
The Battle of Buxar proved to be decisive resulting in the establishment of British sovereignty in Bengal. This battle brought out the political weaknesses and military shortcomings of the Indians and the hollowness of the Mughal Empire. Battle of Buxar proved the military superiority of the English and exposed the inherent weakness of the native force. It was more important than Battle of Plassey as Battle of Plassey was not won by military might but deceit. Also If Plassey saw defeat of the Nawab of bengal, Buxar saw defeat of Mughal Emperor and powerful Oudh.
The Treaty of Allahabad heralded the establishment of the rule of the East India Company in one-eighth of India with a single stroke.
While the Battle of Plassey secured a foothold for the British East India Company in India, the Battle of Buxar made them the dominant force in India. Buxar war completed the work of Plassey.
The East India Company, after the battle of Buxar, gained dominance over entire Bengal. The Mughal emperor came fully under the control of British. All duties and revenues from the most prosperous Indian province (Bengal, Bihar and Orissa) went to the company. It also gained administrative power by controlling the army, finances, and revenues.
With the wealth of Bengal, the British could conquer other regions of India. The supremacy of the British was established in the Eastern parts of India. Buxar finally riveted the shackles of company’s rule upon Bengal.
The verdict of Plassey was confirmed by the English victory at Buxar.

Dual System of Administration in Bengal (1765-1772)

Under this system, the administration was divided between the Company and the Nawab but the whole power was actually concentrated in the hands of the Company. This complex system remained in practice during the period from 1765 to 1772.
Under this system, after obtaining diwani rights from Mughal Emperor, Clive gave the responsibility of collecting Diwani to the Indians and appointed two deputy diwans (Mohammad Raza Khan for Bengal and Raja Shitab Roy for Bihar.)
Nizamat function (police and judicial) was with Nawab but it was also undertaken by the Company. For Nizamat functions the British gave the additional responsibility of deputy Nazim to Mohammad Raza Khan. The deputy Nazim could not be remove without the consent of the company. Thus, although the administration was theoretically divided between the company and the Nawab and the responsibility for administration – Diwani as well as Nizamat – was exercised through Indian agencies, the company acquired real power.
Thus the system was very advantageous for the company: it had power without responsibility. In 1772, Warren Hastings put an end to this Dual System.
To know more: Click Here

BRITISH- NAWAB CONFLICTS IN BENGAL: THE BATTLE OF PLASSEY to THE BATTLE OF BUXAR

	sheharyarqureshi on 1971 war: Witness to hist…
	Sufi on The Environment of Pakistan /…
	Sufi on What were the causes and conse…
	Sufi on What were the causes and conse…
	Hunza on The Environment of Pakistan /…

Share this:

Islamic revivalism – the Wahabi Movement

Share this:

Islamic revivalism – the Feraizi Movement

Share this:

Christian missionary activities in British India

Share this:

Drain of wealth

Share this:

BRITISH – NAWAB CONFLICTS IN BENGAL: THE BATTLE OF PLASSEY to THE BATTLE OF BUXAR

Share this: