1
Summary
Modern Indian History Class 10

Rise of English East India Company as political power (5:05 PM)

  • Was the conquest of India a result of British policy?
  • British arguments:
  • Britain has no such policy and the conquest of India was the product of sub-imperialism.
  • Which are the result of policies and actions and personal ambitions of senior officials of EIC like Robert Clive (Governor of Culcutta presidency), Richard Wellesley (Governor general of Bengal from 1798-1805), Hasting (Governor general of Bengal,1813-23), Dalhousie(Governor-general of India, 1848-56).
  • They had personal ambitions for British polity and a personal desire for empire-building.
  • Many senior EIC officials build good political careers after they retire from EIC.
  • For example, Wellesley became Secretary of State, a cabinet member.
  • In the Pitts India act of 1784, there was a parliamentary prohibition on conquest in India.
  • The goal behind the royal charter of 1600 was trade and not empire building. 
  • Indian arguments:
  • Yes, there was sub-imperialism in India, however, the British state cannot escape responsibility for imperialism in India as a tool of conquest TO EIC by the state as a charter of EIC that was a founding document issued by the state (initially by the crown and later by parliament)
  • It gave power to EIC to wage war, sign treaties, acquire territory, and administer them.
  • EIC had the military support of the Royal military in its military conflicts and without the royal military EIC could not have begun the conquest of India (Battle of Plassey 1757).
  • Even the 1857 revolt was crushed with the help of the royal military.
  • The state assisted EIC in setting up and developing EIC presidencies, for example, Bombay was given an annual rent of just 10 pounds to EIC by the crown.
  • Therefore state helped EIC set up a strong base in India leading to higher profits via trade that led to the capability of EIC to have its big army.
  • British crown, state, and important figures in British polity benefited monetarily from EIC trade and conquest.
  • For example, 17,000 pounds were given by EIC to the crown/monarchy in the 17th century in return for the renewal of charters.
  • In 1698, parliament auctioned the monopoly of British trade with east the New Company as it offered a 2 million pounds loan Vs 700,000 pounds offered by EIC(In 1709 EIC and New Company merged).
  • In 1767, EIC was mandated by parliament/state to pay 400,000 pounds/ annum to the state therefore state wanted its share of EIC loot of Bengal after the battle of Plassey in 1757 and the battle of Buxar in 1764.
  • Important figures were shareholders of EIC, for example, many parliamentarians and Queen Elizabeth herself.
  • EIC became an important tool of the foreign policy of Britain as EIC dominated international trade in Britain.
  • After the regulation act of 1773 and the Pitts India act of 1784, EIC affairs in India came under the supervision and control of the British state, and the board of control could pass binding orders to EIC.
  • Now the principal servants of EIC in India could only be appointed after the approval of the crown.
  • Therefore even if imperialism was not possible for the British state and opportunity made use of and even created by important EIC officials in India, that is sub-imperialism, the British state cannot escape responsibility for imperialism in India.

Events in empire building by EIC (7:11 PM)

  • EIC Vs Aurangzeb,1686:
  • EIC attacked the Mughals in Bengal as Aurangzeb's constant warfare hurt the overland trade, therefore hurting EIC's oceanic trade.
  • EIC was crushed but then forgiven in return for 1.5 lakh rupees compensation as:
  • Mughals got revenue from EIC in form of customs duties and from Indian merchants who sold goods to EIC in form of domestic taxes.
  • Indian merchants got business from EIC.
  • The inflow of gold due to EIC exports from India.
  • Indian peasants and Artisans benefited as EIC trade generated demands for their goods.
  • In fact, in 1691, Aurangzeb issued a Royal Farman that gave EIC the right to duty-free trade in return for just 3000 rupees/annum.
  • Role of Britain-France rivalry:
  • Role of Britain-France Rivalry.
  • 3 Carnatic wars, 1746-48, 1749-54, and 1756-63.
  • Battle of Plassey.
  • 4th Anglo-Mysore war, 1799.

1st Carnatic war, 1746-48 (7:50 PM)

  • It was part of and the result of the Austrian war of succession in 1740-48.
  • Where Britain and France with their allies fought in Europe, the Americas, and India.
  • Dupleix was governor of the french EIC in Pondicerry(the main base of french in India since 1664).
  • He has personal ambitions of empire-building and wanted the french EIC  to dominate the international trade of South India.
  • The conflict began in 1746 after capturing Fort Siant George in Madras, Dupleix refused to hand it over as promised to Nawab of Carnatic.
  • This led to the 1st Carnatic 1746-178 with Carnatic and British EIC Vs French EIC.
  • War was won by Dupleix, however, in North America British were victorious, and for France, its American possession was more important.
  • Therefore under the treaty of Ax-la-Chaple 1748, France got back its possession in North America while the British got back Madras, therefore, status-quo was maintained.
  • Now Dupleix searched for the next opportunity to increase french influence and this led to the 2nd Carnatic war.

The topic for the next class: 2nd Carnatic wars.