Empires, Nations and Lines on Map Integrated Degree: Year 0 (2017-18) Week 3: British COLONIAL PRESENCE IN SOUTH ASIA: BENGAL THE BRITISH BRIDEGHEAD

The market-based economy of Bangladesh is the 46th largest in the world in nominal terms, and 33rd largest by purchasing power parity; it is classified among the Next Eleven emerging market economies and a Frontier market. Economy of West Bengal, a state in eastern India, is primarily dependent on agriculture and medium-sized industry. A significant part of the state is economically backward. Modern Bengal Region

The Bengal Subah was a subdivision of the Mughal Empire. Bengal Subah was the Mughal Empire's wealthiest province. Bengal Subah generated 50% of the empire's GDP and 12% of the world's GDP. Globally dominant in industries such as textile manufacturing and shipbuilding, with the capital Dhaka having a population exceeding a million people. It was an exporter of silk and cotton textiles, steel, saltpetre, and agricultural and industrial produce across the world. Emperor Akbar with a falcon

Mughal empire at the death of Aurangzeb, 1707 CE.

Sikhs Rajputs Awadh Bengal The British Hyderabad Marathas Mysore Post Aurangzeb political entities in 18th century India. Rajputs Awadh Bengal The British Hyderabad Marathas Mysore

18th century: the historiographical debate The debate about 18th century is critical: it mainly centres around the idea that: The period witnessed decline due to the inherent nature (corrupt/Islamic) of the Mughal state. And This decline was controlled only with the establishment of the English East India Company rule In other words, the Mughal decline and the subsequent changes in the Indian politics has been used as a justification for British rule over India.

18th century: the historiographical debate But did India plunge into a dark abyss of political, social and economic misery in the 18th century, after the death of Aurangzeb? This is a question which continues to be open to interpretative suggestions; and therefore is a lively field of historical debate. Broadly speaking therefore, the issues are: (a) Did India decline in the 18th century? (b) if it did, which were specific aspects of this decline? (c) If it did, does it justify British control? (d) If it did not, then why did colonial historians painted a picture of doom and gloom?

Decline of India in the 18th Century? Both yes and no. Yes, the political power of the Mughal Empire declined. There were invasions and disorder in some parts of the subcontinent. But Economic unity was maintained. Even economic expansion was witnessed in the successor states partly due to European trading demands. New political, cultural and artistic centres thrived in the successor states and in places like Mysore. Local cultures, languages and architecture flourished.

Successor States Mughal Provincial rulers who began to act independently: Kept revenue to themselves Set independent military and diplomatic policies. Usually maintained de jure submission to the Mughal throne. Delhi Awadh Bengal Hyderabad

Vasco da Gama (1460s–1524) Depiction of da Gama’s 1498 meeting with Calicut Zamorin,(1752)

Portuguese Empire

British and Dutch incursions

The East India Company(s) East India Companies 1600 – Britain 1602 – Dutch 1664 - French

The English East India Company (EIC) Established in 1600 by a Royal Charter granted by Elizabeth I. The company known as the ‘Right Honourable East India Company’ was a state backed commercial enterprise with monopoly rights to trade in the East. The East India Company’s Crest. Elizabeth I Crest of the English EIC

EIC presence in India Initially, the EIC established ‘factories’ in different parts of India (coastal belt). These factories were the trading posts of the Company and their right to trade was granted by the successive Mughal emperors. The EIC’s main factories were established the three villages – Calcutta, Madras and Bombay, in India, which eventually became thriving metropolis.

Dutch East India Company’s ‘factory’ at Hughli (1665) British East India Company fort in Bombay (Mumbai), c. 1700 Dutch East India Company’s ‘factory’ at Hughli (1665) Fort St. George, Madras (Chennai), 1754

Austrian War of Succession (1740-48)

Arcot The English and the French EIC carried over their European rivalries to Indian soil. In South India, they got embroiled in a succession dispute of the Nawab of Arcot. The result was: British forces won, and these decisive battles brought an end to French political ambition in India. Arcot: in South India was decisive for English EIC.

European rivalries in South Asia Joseph François Dupleix (1697-1763) Governor-General of French India – 1742-1754 Muhammed Ali Khan Wallajah (1749–1795 ) Nawab of Arcot

‘Bengal: the British Bridgehead’ Bengal was the richest of province of India. Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb described it as ‘the paradise of nations’. Bengal was also known as ‘a sink in which gold and silver disappear without any prospect of return’.

EIC expansion: Bengal In the 18th century, Bengal was ruled by a series of successful rulers. Being erstwhile Mughal governors, Bengal’s rulers were competent and encouraged trade. This policy brought the EIC to the region. But for various reasons (read monopoly profit) the EIC wanted least political intervention. But EIC activities became increasingly troublesome, and the then ruler of Bengal – Siraj-ud- daula, was forced to attack and sack Calcutta – the British town.

Expansion in Bengal To avenge its defeat in Calcutta, the EIC hatched a plan to oust the Nawab from power. Consequently, their brazen behaviour forced the Nawab to meet them at the battlefield again, but this time with singular difference. The battle of Plassey (1757) symbolised the end of independent rule in Bengal. The EIC became the master of Bengal. Plassey

Annexation of Bengal: the battle of Plassey (1757) Pictures (from right): Robert Clive and Mir Jaffar after the battle of Plassey, Nawab Siraj-ud-daula, the last independent ruler of Bengal. Siraj-Ud-Daulah, r. 1756-57 Robert Clive and Mir Jaffar after the battle of Plassey

The New Rulers Robert Clive Pictures (from right) Mir Jaffar, the new ruler of Bengal, and Robert Clive the ‘architect of Plassey’. Mir Jaffar, the new puppet ruler of Bengal under EIC.

Picture: A New and Accurate Map of Bengal,’ by Thomas Kitchin, for the London Magazine, (1760)

Funding Trade The East Offering its Riches to Britannia, 1778 (commissioned by the East India Company)

But….. From right: Revenue collected by the EIC during initial years of rule; the Bengal famine of 1769-1770. Revenue collected by the EIC during initial years of rule; the Bengal famine of 1769-1770

Battle of Buxar 1764 Shah Alam II, Mughal Emperor of India, negotiating with East India Company's troops, an illustration from A Short History of the English People, by John Richard Green (1894)

Portrait of Sir Robert Clive (1764) The Company Bahadur Portrait of Sir Robert Clive (1764)

Company Expansion in the 18th century

Company Expansion in the 19th century

Mercantile Origins of Company rule Essentially, Company worked on Mercantilist principles. So, it resented any regulations and wanted to optimise profit – with disregard for any sanctions. Its traders involved in rapacious private trading, undercutting even their company’s profit margins !! Officer of The East India Company, by Dip Chand. Murshidabad, India, mid-18th century.