Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-mp689 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T11:27:50.502Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Trade, Bullion and Conquest Bengal in the Mid-eighteenth Century*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 April 2010

Sushil Chaudhury
Sushil Chaudhury
Affiliation:
University of Calcutta
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The British conquest of Bengal at Plassey, in June 1757, was one of the most significant developments in the eighteenth century. Plassey indeed laid the foundation of the British empire in India. Bengal was the springboard from which the British spread in different directions and ultimately conquered other parts of India. Hence it is imperative to examine closely the background of and the circumstances leading to the conquest. As I have already analysed some aspects of the question elsewhere, in this paper I shall confine myself to the more crucial ones, especially those raised in recent writings and which, strangely enough, tend to perpetuate the traditional explanation of the British conquest of Bengal.

Type
Articles
Information
Itinerario , Volume 15 , Issue 2 , July 1991 , pp. 21 - 32
Copyright
Copyright © Research Institute for History, Leiden University 1991

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes

1 For detailed discussion of some of these aspects, see my article ‘Sirajuddhaullah, the English Company and the British Conquest of Bengal - A Reappraisal’ Indian Historical Review (henceforth IHR) 13,1–2 (1986/1987) 111–134;Google Scholar and my forthcoming article ‘Plassey and the British Conquest of Bengal’ in: History of Bangladesh I, being published by the Asiatic Society of Bangladesh, Dhaka.

2 In a recent seminar in Calcutta (1989), PJ. Marshall emphasized the economic ‘crisis’.

3 For such broad generalization, see Marshall, P.J., Bengal - the British Bridgehead. New Cambridge History of India (Cambridge 1987) 56, 63Google Scholar; Ray, Rajat Kanta, ‘Colonial Penetration and Initial Resistance: The Mughal Ruling Class, the English East India Company and the Struggle for Bengal, 1756–1800’, IHR 12, 1–2 (1985/1986)Google Scholar 4,6,7,14. It should not be misconstrued that I am against any ‘theorization’ but my point is while doing so, one should not lose sight of the specific issues involved. Further a recent study has pointed out (Munshi Mazibor Rahman, Nizamat in Bengal: A Study of its Rise, Growth and Decline, 1700–1757 (unpublished M.Phil, thesis, J.N.U., 1988)Google Scholar that the new class alliance or ‘compact’ was more of a personal character to serve vested interest without any institutional basis and hence bound to be shordived. For Hill's views, see Hill, S.C., Bengal in 1756–57 (London 1905) lii.Google Scholar

4 Gupta, Brijen K., Sirajuddaullah and the East India Company, 1156–51 (Leiden 1962) 32.Google Scholar For recent emphasis on the role of the European Companies and influx of bullion, see , Marshall, Bengal, 65, 67Google Scholar; Bayly, C.A, Indian Society and the Making of the British Empire. New Cambridge History of India (Cambridge 1987) 49,Google Scholar 50. Implied is the emphasis on the role of the Hindu/Jain banking and commercial class and hence the indirect corroboration of the schism in the Bengali society along communal lines which was propounded by Hill, S.C.. I have tried to refute the schism thesis in ‘Sirajuddaullah’ 128–132Google Scholar.

5 Collected and computed from the archives of the Verenigde Oost-Indische Compagnie (henceforth VOC), earlier Koloniaal Archief (K.A.), Algemeen Rijksarchief, The Hague, VOC 2469 (KA. 2361), ff. 1007–1008; VOC 2489 (KA 2381), ff. 291–291vo, 293; VOC 2504 (KA. 2396), ff. 1065–1066; VOC 2518 (KA 2410), ff. 515; VOC 2556 (KA. 2448), ff. 575–576.

6 Bengal Public Consult., Range 1, Vol. 15, f. 327, 7 Oct. 1742; Orme MSS, OV., 12, f. 83; Eur. G.37, Box 21, 1 Sept. 1753; Orme MSS, India VI, f. lllvo, IOR.

7 For Wazid's overseas trade, see my forthcoming article, ‘Armenians in Bengal Trade and Politics: A Study of Khwaja Wazid in mid-18th Century Bengal’, IHR.

8 Compiled and computed from VOC 2754 (K.A. 2646), f. 227; VOC 2829 (K.A 2721), ff. 294–297.

9 For details, see my forthcoming article ‘The Imperatives of Empire - Private Trade, Sub Imperialism and British Attack on Chandernagore, March 1757’, Studies in History.

10 ‘Merchants, Companies and Rulers - Bengal in the Eighteenth Century’, Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient (henceforth JESHO 31 (1988) 82–89.Google Scholar

11 , Gupta, Sirajuddaullah, 32.Google Scholar

12 , Marshall, Bengal, 65, 67; Bayly, Indian Society, 49–50.Google Scholar

13 See for instance Marshall, Bengal, 77, where he states: ‘By April it was clear to the British that there was a party of malcontents in Bengal led by the Jagat Seths who were prepared to try to use British power to gain their ends’. Also Ray, Rajat Kanta, ‘Colonial Penetration’, 15.Google Scholar

14 Chaudhuri, S., Trade and Commercial Organization in Bengal, 1650–1120 (Calcutta 1975)Google Scholar; Chaudhuri, K.N., The Trading World of Asia and the English East India Company (Cambridge 1978)Google Scholar; Prakash, Om, The Dutch East India Company and the Economy of Bengal (Princeton 1985)Google Scholar.

15 Moosvi, Shireen, ‘The Silver Influx, Money Supply, Prices and Revenue Extraction in Mughal India’, JESHO 30 (1987) 92–94.Google Scholar

16 Taylor's Report, Home Misc. Series, 456F, ff. 94–95, IOR.

17 ‘Memorie’ of Dutch Director Taillefert, VOC 2849 (K.A. 2741) 27 Oct. 1755, ff. 188vo-189. 1 lakh is 0.1 million.

18 Beng. Pub. Consult, Range 1, vol. 44, Annex to Consult., 19 June 1769.

19 With such a thriving export trade and consequent production, the thesis of ‘economic crisis’ in mid-eighteenth century Bengal (c.f. f.n. 2 supra) is hardly tenable.

20 For the activities of the merchant princes, see my article, ‘Merchants, Companies and Rulers’, 90–103.

21 Luke Scrafton to Clive, 17 Dec. 1757, Orme MSS, India XVIII, f. 5043, IOR.

22 See my article, ‘Merchants, Companies and Rulers’, 96.

23 For Wazid and Umichand, see Ibidem, 97–103.

24 , Marshall, Bengal, 91Google Scholar; , Bayly, Indian Society, 50Google Scholar; Ray, Rajat, ‘Colonial Penetration’, 7, 11, 12Google Scholar.

25 Law's Memoir, Hill, S.C., Bengal III, 185.Google Scholar

26 Records of Fort St. George, Diary and Consultation Books, Military Dept., 1756 (Madras 1913)330Google Scholar; Orme MSS, Vol. 170, f. 99.

27 Powis Collection, Box 20, John Brown to Clive, 27 Feb. 1752, quoted in Jones, Mark Bence, Clive of India (1974) 92.Google Scholar

28 Select Committee to W. Watts, 14 March 1757, Orme Mss., India V, f. 1275; Orme Mss, O.V. 170, f. 397.

29 Scrafton to Walsh, 9 April 1757; Hill, S.C., Bengal III, 343.Google Scholar

30 Orme Mss, India V, f. 1214, emphasis mine.

31 Watts to his father, 13 Aug. 1757, Hill, S.C., Bengal II, 467,Google Scholar emphasis by me.

32 Orme Mss, India V, f. 1228; Orme Mss, O.V. 170, f. 265, IOR, emphasis mine.

33 Select Committee Consult., 11 June 1757, Orme Mss, India V, ff. 1232–1233; Orme Mss, O.V. 170, ff. 256–257, emphasis mine.