English East India Company
English East India Company
Section titled “English East India Company”2020-04-27 14:55:19
Chronology
Section titled “Chronology”- 1599 : ‘Merchant Adventurers’ company w/ initial monopoly for 15 yrs in 1609 was extended indefinitely
- 1608 : William Hawkins ship Hector reached Surat -> Jahangir appointed him as mansabdar
- 1611 : started trading at Masulipatnam. This factory was temporary.
- 1613 : Factory in Surat under Thomas Aldworth, after Thomas best defeated Portuguese in 1612. Surat factory was permanent.
- 1615 : Sir Thomas Roe came as an ambassador of James I and got permission to set up factories at Agra , Ahmedabad and Broach received by Jehangir
- 1616 : estd factory at Masulipatnam.
- 1632 : ==‘Golden Farman’ by Sultan of Golconda==
- 1639 : Francis Day got from ruler of Chandragiri permission to build fortified factory at - Fort St. George replaced Masulipatnam as HQ
- 1651 : Shah Shuja, the subahdar of Bengal, allowed trade for Rs 3,000/annum
- 1656 : Hooghly, 1658 Kasimbazar, Patna and Rajmahal had factories
- 1662 : Bombay gifted to King Charles II by Portugal as dowry of princess Catherine
- 1686 : Mughals - EIC Hostility in ==for fortification of Hoogly denied by Shayista Khan==, were ousted
- 1687 : headquarters from Surat to Bombay
- 1688 : Job charnock negotiated peace for Mughal-EIC conflict
- 1691 : Sutanuti factory Zamindar of Bardhaman, Sobha Singh; EIC took the Zamindari of Sutanuti , Gobindapur and Kalikata (Kalighat) from their owners after payment of Rs 1,200
- 1700 : Fort William at Calcutta made -> Sir Charles Eyre 1st president
- 1715 : John Surman secured 3 famous farmans privileges in Bengal, Gujarat and Hyderabad - Magna Carta
- imports and exports exempted from additional customs for 3,000 rupees/annum
- dastaks (passes) for the transportation of goods
- could rent more lands around Calcutta.
- Hyderabad : retained freedom from duties in trade
- Surat : for 10,000 rupees/ann exempted from levy of all duties
- coins minted at Bombay currency throughout empire
- 1688 : English revolution of the Whigs -> opposed the monopoly
- 1708 : Rival company formed later merged
Analysis
Section titled “Analysis”Proponenents of the Sub-imperialism Theory
Section titled “Proponenents of the Sub-imperialism Theory”-
There was No overt mandate given by the British parliament for conquest/ colonisation
-
PJ Marshall : ==until 1784 there was no conscious or consistent B policy for political conquest==, neither planned nor directed by B, initiative of coy officials aka sub imperialism
-
CA Bayly : expansion was ==primarily motivated by fiscal and military needs== of coy
Why the sub Imperialism Theory is not Entirely Correct?
Section titled “Why the sub Imperialism Theory is not Entirely Correct?”- Contrary views : use of force from very beginning esp during Charles II; use Navy in IN ocean
- Phillip Lawson : ==moral economy of B gunnery in local markets prevented IN rulers from obstructing B trade==
- 1660 Cromwell silver plates given to king, 1661 loan many loans given
- Initial system of Presidency sys, Bombay as dowry, shift hq form Surat to Bombay(1687) treaty of Whitehall, mutual defence pact also there
- New company formed when promoters of it gave 2mil pound, ==right to trade became marketable community==
- 1770s coy promised annual 400,000 state exchequer for IN territorial possessions
- Charters of coy provided delegated sovereignty
- PJ Cain and AG Hopkins expansion was ==exentsion of gentlemanly capitalism==
- rights of Interlopers/ illegal trade upheld in Skinner vs EIC case validated the misuse of dastaks
Economic, Geographic, Administrative Advantage of EIC 1
Section titled “Economic, Geographic, Administrative Advantage of EIC 1”- #todo
- EIC was formed as joint stock company that allowed it to mobilise a large amount of capital from its stockholders. It also ensured continuity of business activities and policies over a longer period with a scope for mobility of capital.
- It was given a monopoly by the govt of England with trade in India and other countries first given by Queen Elizabeth I this was done by granting a charter to the Company.
- Other European East India Companies were marginalised through military and political victories of Britain over them.
- Weakness of successor states and principalities since the decline of Mughal Empire allowed EIC to bully and bribe local powers to grant it special privileges.
- Coercive practices of the company towards the farmers helped it maintain cheaper prices at the expense of the farmers.
- Company legitimised militarisaiton in the name of self protection and protection of its trade. The English with its superior weapons and Navy was able to rout every Naval power in the region.
- EIC being a private enterprise created sense of enthusiasm and self confidence among its people
- British never neglected their commercial interest whereas the French subordinated their commercial interest to territorial ambition which made it short of funds.
- Britain had superior commanders Ex Clive, Lawrence, Eyre Coote.
- Strategic location of Britain was much better than that of French
- “Neither Alexander the Great nor Napoleon could have won the empire of India by starting from Pondicherry as a base and contending with a power which held Bengal and command of the Sea.” Comment. [2006, 20m]
Great nor Napoleon could have won the empire of India by starting from Pondicherry as a base and contending with a power which held Bengal and command of the sea” suggests that the control of Bengal and command of the sea were crucial factors in determining who would dominate India.
Bengal was a major center of economic and political power in 18th century India, and it was also a major source of revenue for the British East India Company. Control of Bengal allowed the British to exert significant influence over the rest of India and to use its resources for their own gain.
Command of the sea was also important, as it allowed the British to effectively project power and protect their trade routes. The British navy was a dominant force in the 18th century and it was able to control the Indian Ocean, which was a key trade route for India. This naval superiority allowed the British to control the trade and commerce, and to protect their trade centers and troops movements.
Alexander the Great and Napoleon were both military leaders who were able to conquer large territories through their armies, but they both lacked the naval power and control over Bengal that the British East India Company had. Additionally, both Alexander and Napoleon were mainly land-based conquerors and did not have the naval capabilities that the British possessed.
Furthermore, in the 18th century, the British had already established a strong presence in India, with well-trained troops, advanced weapons and a well-organized administration. They were able to take advantage of the internal conflicts of Indian kingdoms and alliances with local rulers, and defeat them one by one.
- “Compared to their English counterpart, the French East India Company enjoyed little discretionary power and had to always look up to Paris for all major decisions. This partly explains the failure of the French in India.” Evaluate Critically. [2012, 10m]
The statement suggests that compared to the British East India Company, the French East India Company faced several disadvantages that partly explain their failure in India. These disadvantages include:
-
Lack of autonomy: The French East India Company had to look up to Paris for all major decisions, which slowed down their ability to respond to changes in the Indian market and to take advantage of opportunities. This lack of autonomy hindered the company’s ability to make quick decisions and adapt to the Indian market.
-
Limited resources: The French East India Company had fewer resources than the British East India Company and was not able to match the British in terms of military power and naval capabilities. This limited their ability to project power and protect their trade routes.
-
Lack of political support: The French government did not provide as much support as the British government did to their East India Company. This limited the company’s ability to expand its control over India and to take advantage of the internal conflicts of Indian kingdoms.
-
Limited administrative capabilities: The French East India Company’s administrative capabilities were not as developed as the British East India Company. This limited their ability to govern and exploit the resources of the territories they controlled.
-
Less favorable trading agreements: The French East India Company had less favorable trading agreements compared to the British East India Company, which limited their access to certain markets and resources in India.
These disadvantages limited the French East India Company’s ability to expand its control
- “Dupleix made a cardinal blunder in looking for the key of India in madras: Clive sought and found it in Bengal.” Critically examine. [2013, 10m]
- Personal incompetence : https://www.historydiscussion.net/history-of-india/failure-of-french/top-8-causes-for-the-french-failure-in-india/5920
The statement suggests that the French East India Company, under the leadership of Joseph François Dupleix, made a critical mistake by focusing on Madras as the key to gaining control of India, while the British East India Company, under the leadership of Robert Clive, correctly identified Bengal as the key to gaining control of India.
Dupleix, the Governor-General of French India, believed that by controlling Madras, the British East India Company’s most important trading post in southern India, the French could gain a significant advantage in the region. However, this strategy failed to account for the importance of Bengal as an economic and political center in 18th century India.
Clive, on the other hand, understood the importance of Bengal and successfully gained control of the region through the Battle of Plassey in 1757. Bengal was a major center of economic and political power in 18th century India and it was also a major source of revenue for the British East India Company. Control of Bengal allowed the British to exert significant influence over the rest of India and to use its resources for their own gain.
Additionally, the British East India Company was able to take advantage of the internal conflicts of Indian kingdoms and alliances with local rulers, and defeat them one by one.
Dupleix’s focus on Madras as the key to India was a strategic blunder, as it failed to account for the importance of Bengal in the overall control of India. On the other hand, Clive’s focus on Bengal as the key to India was a strategic success as it helped the British East India Company to establish a strong presence in India, and ultimately control it.
-
Comment on the French ambition of building a territorial empire in India. [2016, 10m]
-
According to the historian J. A. Froude, the French ambitions in India were limited. He writes, “The French had no desire to conquer India, but only to share in the trade and to establish a few factories.” (Source: J. A. Froude, “The English in Ireland in the Eighteenth Century,” 1873)
-
According to the historian J. M. Roberts, the French saw India as a potential market for French goods and a source of precious commodities such as textiles and spices. He writes, “The French East India Company, founded in 1664, was a latecomer to the Indian trade, but it established settlements and trading posts along the coast, and in the 18th century it sent out a stream of officials, administrators, soldiers, and priests, who established a French presence in India.” (Source: J. M. Roberts, “The Oxford Illustrated History of the British Empire,” 1998)
-
According to historian Michael Roberts, French ambitions in India were driven by the desire to challenge the British and to protect French trade interests. He writes, “French ambitions in India were driven by the desire to challenge the British and to protect French trade interests. They also sought to establish a colonial presence in the region and challenge the British East India Company’s dominance.” (Source: Michael Roberts, “The French East India Company and the Trade of the Indian Ocean,” 2016)
-
According to historian André Wink, French ambitions in India were limited by the fact that France had other colonies in the world that were considered more important and valuable, such as in America and Africa. He writes, “French ambitions in India, were limited by the fact that France had other colonies in the world that were considered more important and valuable, such as in America and Africa. Furthermore, the French were not interested in territorial conquest, but rather in economic gain.” (Source: André Wink, “Al-Hind: The Making of the Indo-Islamic World,” 1990)
-
According to historian Bernard S. Cohn, French efforts to establish a territorial empire in India were unsuccessful. He writes, “The French efforts to establish a territorial empire in India were unsuccessful. They were unable to match the military and economic power of the British, and their ambitions in the region were limited.” (Source: Bernard S. Cohn, “Colonialism and its Forms of Knowledge: The British in India,” 1996)