Syllabus:
The Early European Settlements; The Portuguese and the Dutch; The English and the French East India Companies; Their struggle for supremacy; Carnatic Wars;
Bengal -The conflict between the English and the Nawabs of Bengal; Siraj and the English; The Battle of Plassey; Significance of Plassey; Bengal; Buxar;
The Afghan war; Sind; The Marathas; The three Anglo-Maratha Wars; Mysore; Punjab
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PAST YEAR QUESTIONS:
Comment on the French ambition of building a territorial empire. In India. [2016]
“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]
“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]
“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]
"Beginning with small means, then suddenly astonishing the world by its dazzling promise, the venture of the French in India was destined to end thus early in humiliation and failure". Comment.
Comment was by Colonel GD Maleson in the context of the failure of French in their struggle for supremacy against English Co.
Anglo-French Rivalry
Process of estb of BR in India. French g g Dupleix was ambitious and visionary, realizing the existence of political degeneration in India, he tried to estb. French political domination over India by supporting friendly native rulers. Dupleix was immensely successful in his approach - placed his favourite on throne of Carnatic (Chanda Sahib). Other European Companies were not even expecting it.
When Dupleix inaugurated the policy of making political gains to compensate for the declining profits of the French Company he took the first step towards its decline. English company was taken by surprise. But this dazzling success of French was bound to doom because of certain fundamental limitation of approach of Dupleix and competitive advantage of English company.
Causes for the Failure of the French:
BENGAL vs MADRAS (Pondicherry) - Dupleix committed mistake of finding key of India (success) in Madras where resources were extremely deficient. EIC established domination over France. In long drawn struggle outcome is decided by availability of resources. Beginning with Pondicherry as base even Napoleon couldn't afford to rule India.
LEADER - other French commanders were egoistic. English was blessed with able commanders. It was Clive's courage that - 2nd Carnatic war - one person held on to Fort for 53 days.
LIMITATIONS of CHARACTER of French Company - every important decision was taken in Paris; liberal / proactive support absent; English got support and liberty from government. Rightly commented by GD Maleson. Defeat of French in Battle of Wandiwash confirmed this statement.
Systems of Government in France: despotic - short-sighted, ill-managed European policy of Louis XV, misguided by his mistresses and by incompetent ministers, that France lost her Indian settlements in the Seven Years War. The French Company was a department of the state.
French Continental Pre-occupations: strained her resources.
The English Company, on the other hand, was an independent commercial corporation. While this Company could not remain altogether unaffected by the political upheavals in England, the interference of the government into its day-to-day affairs was very little.
Impact of English Successes in Bengal:
Enhanced the political prestige of the English Company, it placed at its disposal the vast resources in wealth and manpower of Bengal.
When Count De Lally was ill at ease as to how to make payments to his troops, Bengal sent not only troops, but supplies to the Carnatic. The Deccan was too poor to finance the political ambition of Dupleix or military schemes of Count De Lally.
V.A. Smith emphatically declares: "Neither Bussy nor Dupleix singly, nor both combined, had a chance of success against the government which controlled the sea routes and the resources of the Gangetic valley. It is futile to lay stress upon the personal frailties of Dupleix, Lally or lesser men in order to explain the French failure.
The complex power struggle going on in India in 18th Century facilitated the establishment of Br Indian Empire. Explain.
18th C was age of political upheaval in India - large scale political transformations were witnessed in C.
During 18th C due to decline of Mughal Empire and emergence of new forces (politico-military) -> COMPLEX power struggle, i.e. multiple actors at different levels.
Mughal Court - Nobles <=> kingmakers, Sayyid brothers, Imad-ul-mulk, establish their domination over the Mughal crown. Regional kingdoms - Bengal (ambitions of Nobility - Mir Jafar and others)
Central Authority challenged by Regional powers -> emergence of succession states. Eg: Bengal, Awadh, Hyderabad.
Indian Regional Powers were fighting against each other = INTERNECINE Struggle. India was challenged by foreign invaders also - Nadir Shah, Ahmed Shah Abdali.
Defeat of Marathas at 3rd BoP created a political vacuum -> Complex Power Struggle => Central Authority weakened and EIC did not have to face struggle. Ground was fertile to use Divide and Rule.
After the Battle of Plassey, how did India transit from the medieval to the modern age? [2016]
“On 23 June 1757, the middle ages of India ended and her modern age began.” Comment. [1992, 20m]
Intro - BoP - set foot, establish rule.
Positives - Rule of Law, Uniform administration, Political Unification, Modern Press, Rail, Telegraph, Western Education, World Contact.
Criticism - Economic Policies - drain of wealth, famines.
Conclude - not just BoP but several other features which led to rise of modern age.
How did the British conquer Bengal in the 18th century? What circumstances helped them? [1998, 60m]
The battle of Plassey was “not a great battle but a great betrayal.” Comment. [2000, 20m]
How did the East India Company became the dejure power in India? [2009, 30m]
Paper1 - “The Battle of Plassey that decided the fate of Bengal was won by Clive through intrigues.” Explain. [15M]
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 over throw 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. The Committee passes a resolution in support of the alliance. A treaty was drawn between the British and Mir Jafar to raise him to the throne of 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.
On 23rd June 1757 was the battle of Plassey fought between the armies of Siraj-ud-Daulah and Clive. The Nawab's army contained 50,000 infantry, 2800 cavalry and Clive's army consisted only 3000 men including English soldiers. Out of three divisions of Nawab, one was commanded by Mir Jafar. From the beginning of battle, Mir Jafar, Rai Durlabh and Yar Lutuf Khan assembled their troops near the battlefield but made no move to actually join the battle.
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. He was killed by Miran, the son of Mir Jafar.
THE BATTLE OF PLASSEY WAS NOT IMPORTANT FROM MILITARY VIEWPOINT. IT WAS A MERE SKIRMISH. 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 which assured win even before the real battle. He won the battle almost without fighting. The battle was won not by military might but by deceit. According to some historians: "Plassey was a transaction in which the rich bankers of Bengal and Mir Jaffar sold out the Nawab to the English". HENCE, the battle of PLASSEY WAS NOT A GREAT BATTLE BUT A GREAT BETRAYAL.
THE BATTLE OF PLASSEY DECIDED THE FATE OF BENGAL. The battle made the position of the company DE JURE in Bengal. The Nawab of Bengal became merely puppet in the British hand. Also, the battle of Plassey followed the subsequent plunder of Bengal as vast resources of Bengal was placed at the disposal of English.
Before the Battle, English company was just one of European companies trading in Bengal and huge taxes were imposed by the Nawabs of Bengal. After Plassey the English virtually monopolised Bengal's trade and commerce. The tax and wealth earned from here helped the British to balance all of their trade liabilities.
“Plassey did not complete the British conquest of India. Had the English been convincingly defeated in any subsequent battle in India, then (the battle of) Plassey would have remained as a minor episode in the history of India.” Critically examine. [2014, 10M]
"Buxar takes rank amongst the most decisive battles ever fought.” Comment. [1982, 20m]
"Thus ended the famous battle of Buxar, on which depended the fate of India and which was as gallantly disputed as was important in its results.” Comment. [1985, 20m]
“The verdict of Plessey was confirmed by the English victory at Buxar.” Comment. [1996, 20m][2002, 20m]
The next battle was battle of BUXAR. HAD BRITISH DEFEATED IN THE BATTLE OF BUXAR, PLASSEY WOULD HAVE REMAINED AS A MINOR EPISODE IN THE HISTORY OF INDIA BECAUSE OF following reasons:
Battle of Plassey was won almost without fight "transaction in which bankers …."
Battle of Buxar was important from military point of view. The battle of Plassey was won by the British more by their diplomatic skill than by their strength of arms. But, BoB was won by them by their sheer strength and skill in arms.
The seeds of British imperialism shown at Plassey flowered after the BoB, 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 alliance from the company. BoB proved the military superiority of English and exposed the inherent weakness of the native force.
While the BoP secured a foothold for Br EIC, the BoB made them the dominant force in India. BATTLE OF BUXAR COMPLETED THE WORK OF PLASSEY.
Buxar confirmed the decision of Plassey. EIC, after the BoB 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.
On the other hand, some historians have attached greater importance to the Battle of Plassey. They have said that it was difficult to remove SIRAJ-UD-Daulah after the Battle of Plassey than Mir Qasim after the Battle of Buxar. BoB was only an attempt by the native powers to challenge the position acquired by the English in Bengal, Bihar and Orissa. The Battle of Plassey made the position of company DE JURE in Bengal. After BoP a huge sum was given to EIC.
It can be concluded that both the battles had important effects on the growth of British power in India but it is true that the results of BoB were important for the British. Any defeat in BoB would have given opposite result, lessening importance of the BoP.
“The revolution of 1760 (Bengal) was really no revolution.” Comment. [1987, 20m]
It was merely the replacement of one nawab by another.
In July 1760 the sudden death of Miran, Mir Jafar’s eldest son, brought up the question of succession. Nawab’s son-in-law Mir Qasim was made the new successor as per treaty.
“The rise and expansion of British empire was an accident rather than the result of a deliberate policy and design.” Critically examine this statement. [2002, 60m]
The British conquered India‚ “in a fit of absent minded-ness”. [1997, 20m]
"The process of conquest of India, to begin with, was accidental but in later stages the design of an Indian empire gripped the imagination of both British politicians and their Indian administrators". Comment critically.
Comment is in the establishment of British rule - controversy - John Seeley, "Indian was conquered in fit of absent mindedness", never planned, all of a sudden found self as masters of India.
Nationalist Historians - PLANNED - opportunity to subjugate Natives - visible in every C in Africa, Asia.
Closure examination - truth somewhere between the two interpretation. 150 years - busy in Trade [EIC] -> Farmans, ZAMINDARI rights -> commercial gain and no motive for political rule. When 1st Carnatic war started -> Co. Participated in politico-admin matters -> French started to please favourites and so Co. responded -> Victory of EIC gave taste of mercantilism (economic gains using political means).
BoP - personal ambition of Clive; BoB - war of circumstances. No design till 1813. With arrival of Lord Hastings approach changed - PARAMOUNTCY = Supreme sovereign power of EIC -> expansion - 3rd Anglo Maratha War, Gorkha war -> Dalhousie - Plan of Empire visible -> 1858 overtake (façade of EIC removed) - True face of Br Colonial Rule.
After 1757 there grew up a State of Bengal which was a ‘sponsored state” as well as a “plundered state”. [1999, 20m]
<Sponsored = Bengal financed other activities, Plundered = Drain of Wealth from Bengal>
Discuss the causes that led to the ‘economic drain’ in Bengal following the Battle of Plassey. [2004, 60m]
The Mughal Emperor, Shah Alam, granted ‘Diwani’ to the East India Company after its victory in the Battle of Buxar (1764).
Diwani Rights were the rights granted to British East India Company to collect revenues and decide the civil cases, not criminal cases.
The British control over Bengal, Bihar and Orissa was now legally acknowledged.
The diwani rights went to the Company leaving foujdari and administrative authority to the Nawab. The “powerless” Nawab had powerless responsibilities while the British enjoyed powers without any responsibilities.
Once they got the diwani rights, the Company stopped receiving money from England to buy merchandise in India. The revenue received from Bengal was used for this purpose, and the money earned by selling these goods went back to England — not spent in Bengal.
The LRS, Commercialization of Agriculture, De-I, Decline of Handicrafts, Tariff Policy.
The Residents appointed by the East India Company looked after - Political and commercial affairs of the princely states.
After the Battle of Buxar (1764), the Company appointed Residents in Indian states. They were political or commercial agents and their job was to serve and further the interests of the Company. Through the Residents, the Company officials began interfering in the internal affairs of Indian states. They tried to decide who was to be the successor to the throne, and who was to be appointed in administrative post.
“By certain of his actions Clive has marred both the glory and usefulness of his work.” Comment. [1995, 20m]
Millions died from hunger. Even the governor-general declared that a third of the population of Bengal had starved to death, something made more astonishing by the fact that food shortages in this region had previously been all but unknown in history.
Clive was back in England by the time of the famine, enjoying his wealth at home. But he was called to account in parliament in London in the early 1770s. When asked about the suffering of millions in India, Clive simply answered — like the chief executive of a distressed bank — that his priorities had been to protect the interests of shareholders, not those of the local population; his responsibility was to the East India Company — not to poor Indians and Bengalis whom he described as either 'servile, mean, submissive and humble' or 'luxurious, effeminate, tyrannical, treacherous, venal, cruel'. He deserved no criticism, surely, for doing his job.
These answers met with howls of derision from some in parliament. But his attitude — and the suffering in Bengal — had a much more dramatic impact on the other side of the world. Reports about how the British had behaved circulated extensively in North America. Leaflets and pamphlets were widely distributed in Pennsylvania that described the East India Company as an institution 'well versed in Tyranny, Plunder, Oppression, and Bloodshed'. If the British were prepared to let those in India die from hunger, why not in the colonies in America too?
With the Declaration of Independence in 1776, those living in 13 colonies proclaimed a United States of America, free from rule of the Kingdom of Great Britain that was guilty of 'repeated injuries and usurpations.' The time had come, the founding fathers said, to put an end to the 'long train of abuses and usurpations' and to cast free the shackles and become free. It was time, in other words, to make America great.
No Madrassapatinam, then no East India Company or British Empire; no East India Company, then no Robert Clive; no Robert Clive, then no US independence. No US independence, then no Donald Trump.
At the battle of Biddera the English crushed the power of - Dutch.
The Battle of Chinsurah (also known as the Battle of Biddera) took place near Chinsurah, India on 25 November 1759 during the Seven Years' War between a force of British troops mainly of the British East India Company and a force of the Dutch East India Company which had been invited by the Nawab of Bengal Mir Jafar to help him eject the British and establish themselves as the leading commercial company in Bengal.
ANGLO-MYSORE WARS
Why was Mysore considered a threat by the British to their possessions and mercantile interests in the south? Do you think that Tipu Sultan’s posturing became his undoing? [2009, 30m]
Examine the circumstance which led to the third Mysore War. Could Cornwallis have avoided it? [2006, 60m]
The British in their way to establish their supremacy and control over India had to wage wars with many Indian powers. One of the most formidable powers they had to face in their task of conquering India was the Mysore.
The British had to fight four rounds of wars with the Mysore State before it could be brought under its control. A survival episode in this context was the third Anglo-Mysore war fought between 1790 and 1792.
1st War and Treaty: The British since the beginning viewed with jealousy the rising might of the Mysore under Hyder Ali. They relieved him to be a dangerous foe. They perceived that in any scheme of conquest of south India, they will have to contend with the rising power of Hyder Ali. They tried therefore to crush him. In the First Mysore War in 1766 to 1769, they forged alliance with the Nizam of Hyderabad to crush Hyder Ali. However, Hyder Ali succeeded in breaking the alliance and in defeating the British and appeared before Madras. The British had to conclude Treaty of Madras to ward off the danger from his side.
2nd War and arrival of Tipu: After concluding peace with the Marathas at Uadgaon, the British once again between 1780 and 1784 built up presume on Mysore in what has now come to be known as the Second Anglo-Mysore War. Hyder Ali died during course of war and was succeeded by a worthy successor in form of Tipu Sultan of Mysore, who continued the war. Ultimately both the sides had to settle for existing status quo by the Treaty of Mangalore. However, the British after this treaty did not refrain from pursuing deliberate expansionist policy. They were on a look out for the opportunity to crush the power of Mysore once and for all. In the meanwhile, the British had brought peace with the Marathas by the Treaty of Salbai which gave them breather for twenty years from the Maratha side. Moreover, they could now use the friendship with the Marathas to pressurize Mysore into submission.
Like British, Tipu was equally aware of danger to his position posed by the imperialist British company. Hence he made all out efforts to strengthen Mysore economically and militarily. He introduced new weights and measures reformed the currency system. He also encouraged modern trade and industry and established trading relations with France, Afghanistan, Turkey and Pegu.
He also curbed the lower of local intermediaries over peasants. Militarily, he imparted military training to his soldiers on modern lines, and organized themselves on western military principles. He also equipped his army with modern weapons. Diplomatically, he cultivated friendly relations and exchanged envoys with France, Turkey, Iran and Pegu.
3rd WAR - Cornwallis and Tipu:
The British in the meanwhile were busy forging alliances should they had to face the war with Mysore. They organized an anti-Mysore alliance to which were drawn the Marathas, Nizam of Hyderabad and Berar. The arrival of an imperialist Governor General Cornwallis aided the prospects of war with the Mysore State.
The immediate circumstance for the war was provided by Tipu's attack on the Raja of Travancore. Tipu objected to the Raja of Travancore's purchase of Jaikottai and Craganore from the Dutch. Tipu had considered Cochin as his tributary state and these areas were parts of Cochin.
To assert his sovereign right, Tipu decided to attack Travancore. On the other hand, the Raja of Travancore was the ally of the British. So, the British utilized the Tipu's attack on Travancore as pretext to rush to the side of Travancore against Tipu and declared war against Tipu.
At the head of a large army Cornwallis himself marched through Vellore and Amber to Bangalore and approached Serirangpatnam. The English captured Coimbatore only to lose it later. Supported by the Marathas and the Nizam's troops, the English made a second advance towards Serirangpatnam.
Tipu offered tough resistance but realized the impossibility of carrying further the struggle. The Treaty of Serirangpatnam was concluded in March 1792 which resulted in the surrender of nearly half of the Mysorean territory to the victorious allies. The British acquired Bonamahal, Dindigul and Malabar. The Marathas in their shore got the territory on the Tunghbhadra side and the Nizam acquired territories from the Krishna to the Pennar.
Tipu also had to pay a war indemnity of over three crores of rupees. Tipu lost heavily in this round of strength and could only save his kingdom from total extinction by preparation and planning which seemed beyond his resources. He had also to pay war indemnity and since he could pay only half the amount, two of his sons were taken captive till the indemnity was paid.
Could have avoided the War?
A very important aspect related to the Third Anglo Mysore War is the debate on the issue of whether Cornwallis in exercise of his sound judgment could have avoided the Third Anglo-Mysore War. There are two diametrically opposite points of view that are there on this issue.
One side of the debate argues in favour of inevitability of the third Anglo Mysore war. It is contended that the British East India Company in pursuit of its imperialistic ambitions had already engaged in two rounds of struggle and given the nature of relationship between them and preparations made by both sides for the strengthening of their respective positions hardly rule out the fact that the war was inevitable.
The other side of the debate focuses on Cornwallis itching for the war and ultimately entangling the British in it. It is argued that Cornwallis had been explicitly asked to consolidate British gains in India than to go for any fresh round of belligerence.
Also, it is of Pitt's India Act of 1784 had been that it had prohibited all aggressive wars in India. Moreover, the Pitt's India Act of 1784 had also ruled against the conclusion of treaties of guarantee with the Indian princes like those with the nawabs of Carnatic and Oudh on the ground that to pursue schemes of conquest and extension of dominion in India were measures repugnant to the British, the honour and the policy of the British nation.
However, Lord Cornwallis in stark violation of provisions of this Act of 1784 went for conclusion of mutually beneficial defensive alliance with Nizam of Hyderabad and deliberately omitted the name of Tipu Sultan from the text of the Treaty. This raised the hackles of suspicion of Tipu who started preparing Mysore for war.
Cornwallis moreover is also criticized for not having annexed Mysore after the conclusion of war when he could have easily done it as entire Mysore lay on his mercy. Lord Cornwallis action in this regard became subject of ringing controversy in Britain at that time.
The main arguments given in favour of Cornwallis stand were that this would have made company's settlement of spoils of war with its allies complicated. Moreover, there was even present danger of hostility of the rival European companies.
The Third Anglo Mysore War crippled the Mysore state of half of its territories. The final blow to the independence was struck by the Fourth Anglo- Mysore War under leadership of Lord Wellesley.
ANGLO-MARATHA WARs
The First Anglo-Maratha War (1775–1782) was the first of three Anglo-Maratha wars fought between the British East India Company and Maratha Empire in India in which the latter emerged victorious. It happened when the British interfered in the matters of Marathas backing Raghunath Rao for Peshwa ship and against Madhav Rao II, the posthumously adopted son of Gangabai (w/o Narayan Rao). Madhav Rao was supported by Nana Phadnavis.
The British “fought the First Maratha War in a period when their fortunes were at the lowest ebb”. Comment. [1998, 20m]
In 1772, the company had reached on the verge of bankruptcy. Company had to seek loan from the home government. It will seek a loan of 1.4 million pound but with conditions. This conditions outlined with Regulating Act of 1773 took away the independence of company. It came under British Parliamentary control.
When company was fighting against Marathas, American War of Independence was already going on. There was no possibility of any assistance from home government during this hour of crisis.
When company was somehow sustaining against Marathas, the state of Mysuru led by Haider Ali, declared war on company as a result the company had to face an extremely serious challenge to save its existence against India.
That is why its commented atop.
The war began with the Treaty of Surat and ended with the Treaty of Salbai. Salbai is located 32 km south-east to Gwalior city in Gwalior district, MP. Br GG was Warren Hastings. The treat of Salbai was signed in 1782. Both sides had tasted each other's strength which ensured mutual respect and peace for the next 20 years.
The English restored to the Peshwa all places captured by them during the war except the island of Shasti and small islands near Bombay.
The company retained control of Salsette and Broach and acquired guarantees that the Marathas would defeat Hyder Ali of Mysore and retake territories in the Carnatic. The Marathas also guaranteed that the French would be prohibited from establishing settlements on their territories. In return Br acknowledged Madhav Rao II as Peshwa of the Maratha empire. Marathas agreed to pay Raghunath Rao allowance.
Both sides decided not to molest each other's allies. The British would enjoy trade privilege as before. Peshwa was not to support any other European Nation.
“The Treaty of Salbai (1782) was neither honorable to the English nor advantageous to their interests.” Comment. [2004, 20m]
The British had to denounce support for Raghunath Rao. The Br failed in their war aim.
The Br had to return territories won back to the Marathas and Maratha supremacy was proved. This reduced the British possessions in the North Konkan, Bombay and Gujarat.
The treaty on the face proved dishonourable to Br considering that their prestige in India had increased and they were in the process of becoming a paramount power in country.
The material gain for British were negligible in comparison to the expenditure on the war.
Counter Views:
Though Marathas got almost all the territories lost to the Br, they permanently lost the island of Sasti and its dependencies. The loss of Sasti meant loss of revenue of 6 lakhs, loss of trade to some extent as well as loss of prestige to Marathas.
From Br point of view, there was no loss of territory. Whatever territories were exchanged were Maratha territories which the British had conquered during the war.
The Br used the peace treaty with Maratha to defeat Mysore, as British were fighting the second Anglo-Mysore war at the time of treaty of Salbai. The British saved their position from the then powerful Marathas under Nana Phadnavis and received their help in isolating the rulers of Mysore.
The treaty proved much advantageous to the expansionist interest of British as it gave them peace with Marathas for nearly 20 years. They used this time to fight their enemies such as rulers of Mysore (Hyder Ali and Tipu) and French to consolidate their position in Hyderabad and Awadh.
Hence, the treaty of Salbai was somewhat disadvantageous to the Br in short run and did not result in much immediate gain. But, the English used it in their advantage in the long run towards Br Supremacy in India.
“Anglo-Maratha War covering nearly nine years from the murder of Narayan Rao to the Treaty of Salbai emphatically discloses the vitality of the Maratha nation which had not been exhausted either by the disaster of Panipat or the death of their great Peshwa Madhavrao.” Comment. [1991, 20m]
“The Treaty of Bassein, 1802 was‚ a step which changed the footing on which we the English stood in western India. It trebled the English responsibilities in an instant.” Comment. [Dean Hutton] [1983, 20m]
The Treaty of Bassein was concluded in 1802 between the British East India Company and the Peshwa Baji Rao II, when Peshva Baji Rao II fled to British protection after having been defeated by Holkar.
The treaty was an important landmark in the history of British paramountcy in India. It put an end to the Maratha independence and gave the Company unquestionable supremacy over Maratha state and western India.
As per the treaty, Peshwa had to surrender territories yielding 26 lakhs of rupees apart from surrendering Surat. Extra territory and its administration increased English responsibilities and influence.
By camping the company’s subsidiary troops at Poona the Company got a very advantageous position in case of war with the Marathas or any other rivals. This increased British Army offensive capability and increased the strength of British in western Indian. The camping of subsidiary troops gave British responsibility to protect territory of Peshwa.
The Peshwa had to accept the company’s arbitration in all differences between him and the other states. This increased English responsibilities.
By providing for company’s mediation in all cases of disputes between the Peshwa and the Nizam, the state of Hyderabad almost completely passed under the company’s protection as Nizam was already under the subsidiary alliance with the British.
Lord Castlereagh, the President of the Board of Control had criticized the treaty by saying that it would unnecessarily increase the responsibilities of British as the treaty provided for the Peshwa’s acceptance of the British arbitrations in his disputes with other powers was fraught with the danger of involving the English in the endless and complicated Maratha turbulent.
“Upon the whole, then, I conclude that the treaty of Bassein was wise, just and a politic measure.” Comment. [1986, 20m] [2005, 20m]
“The treaty of Bassein, by is direct and indirect operations, gave the Company the Empire of India.” [1993, 20m]
The treaty was not acceptable to leading chiefs and hence followed by 2nd Anglo Maratha War (1803-1806).
Major General Arthur Wellesley while replying to the criticism of the political wisdom of the treaty of Bassein, called the treaty as wise, just and politic (बुद्धिमान, नीति-चतुर) measure. He gave the following reasons:
The probability existed that arrangements under the treaty would be carried into execution without a war and that it would secure the permanent peace of India.
The treaty was the most efficient mean of opposing the Maratha confederacy with success.
By camping the company's subsidiary troops at Poona the company got a very advantageous position in case of war with the Marathas or any other rivals. This increased British Army offensive capability. In fact in 1803 war, the armies were enabled immediately to render offensive operations by adopting this position.
If it should be contended that the British government ought to have expected, as a consequence of the treaty, war with the confederacy which happened in 1803, with the military and political advantage they acquired by the Treaty of Bassein they had nothing to fear from that confederacy.
If they had not concluded the treaty of Bassein they would in a few months afterwards have been involved in a war with the more powerful Maratha confederacy, much increased in strength and resources, and possessing superior advantages, while those of the Company, in every point of view, would have been diminished.
Without treaty, Maratha confederacy would have been more united and strong but British would have been at several disadvantages such as: lack of means and resources, lack of support from Peshwa and instead of offensive their position would have been defensive upon a frontier extending above a thousand miles..
“……. the hunt of the Pindaris became merged in the Third Maratha War.” Comment. [1989, 20m]
Trace the course of the Anglo-Maratha relations in the first two decades of the nineteenth century. Account for the ultimate defeat of the Maratha power by the British. [1984, 60m]
How did the British establish their control over Maharashtra in the first two decades of the 19th century? Why did the Maratha challenge ultimately collapse? [1994, 60m]
What were the long term and short term reasons for defeat of Marathas?
Constant enmity among regional powers.
Factionalism among Pune court members or among the leaders (Peshwas and Sardars).
Extension of territory to large frontiers which was unmanageable.
Shivaji had created a regional state that got its power from peasants and warriors. Once the cause and base changed the decline and defeat of Marathas started.
The Bhima-Koregaon battle was a part of which among the following wars?
a) Third Carnatic War
b) Fourth Anglo-Mysore War
c) Third Anglo-Maratha War
d) World War II
The Koregaon Ranstambh (victory pillar) is an obelisk in Bhima-Koregaon village commemorating the British East India Company soldiers who fell in a battle on January 1, 1818, where the British, with just 834 infantrymen — about 500 of them from the Mahar community — and 12 officers defeated the 28,000-strong army of Peshwa Bajirao II. It was one of the last battles of the Third Anglo-Maratha War, which ended the Peshwa domination.
Babasaheb Ambedkar’s visit to the site on January 1, 1927, revitalised the memory of the battle for the Dalit community, making it a rallying point and an assertion of pride.
Importance of Sindh for British:
The conquest of Sindh occurred as a result of the growing Anglo-Russian rivalry and the consequent British fears that Russia might attack India through North Western region. To counter Russia, the British government decided to increase its influence in Afghanistan and Persia. It further felt that this policy could be successfully pursued only if Sindh was brought under British control.
The commercial possibilities of the river Sindh were an additional attraction. Primary waterway of Sindh, the Indus river, was important for military and commercial purpose. The road and rivers of Sindh were opened to British trade by a treaty in 1832 but military presence of British were not allowed under this treat.
“The British conquest of Sind was both a political and moral sequel to the first afghan war.” Comment. [1995, 60m]
[The 19th century was a period of diplomatic competition between the British and Russian empires for spheres of influence in Asia known as the "Great Game" to the British and the "Tournament of Shadows" to the Russians.]
The First Anglo-Afghan War (also known as Disaster in Afghanistan) was fought between British imperial India and the Emirate of Afghanistan from 1839 to 1842.
Sir Charles Napier said, “We have no right to seize Sind, yet we shall do so, and a very advantageous, useful, humane piece of rascality it will be.” Comment. [1984, 20m][1990, 20m][2000, 20m]
Annexation of Sindh:
Governor General Auckland had sent army to Sindh and announced the suspension of 1832 treaty. The chief of Sindh, known as Amirs, were made to sign a subsidiary treaty in 1839. British forced Amirs to finance British military presence and accept British East India Company's currency. A British resident was also installed in Hyderabad. All these effectively ended the sovereignty of Sindh.
Lord Ellenborough, Auckland's successor sent Sir Charles Napier with full civil and military powers to Sindh in September 1842, to take control of all British Indian troops there. Sindh was annexed in 1843 after a brief campaign by Sir Charles Napier.
The annexation of Sindh was totally unjustified because of following reasons:
Sindh was annexed despite the fact that Amirs who ruled Sindh had just signed agreement in 1839, highly favourable to British. Amirs had done no wrong and annexation was nothing but brutal imperialism.
Sindh was annexed in spite of previous assurances that its territorial integrity would be respected. Annexation was open violation of existing treaty.
Charge against Amirs was that they could not possibly be devoted to the company. Napier and Ellenborough held certain vague charges of disaffection in Amirs based on evidences which were unsatisfactory. They accused Amirs for complicity with Afghan during the first Afghan War.
One of the major reasons of the annexation of Sindh was the debacle of British in first Anglo-Afghan war. Br felt need for a conquest to compensate for the loss of prestige. This was only war in the annals of British Raj which cannot be regarded as in some sense or some degree defensive.
Napier was an ambitious soldier who saw opportunity in making name for himself. Napier provoked the Sindhis into attacking British Residency in Hyderabad and war ensued.
The annexation of Sindh was morally indefensible. Amirs had faithfully carried out terms of treaties and had been loyal to British. The annexation was universally condemned. The company directors approved of Napier's Sindh policy though they had no courage to restore Sindh to Amirs.
Outram, the British resident in Sindh had written to Charles Napier, General to who Ellenborough had given free hand. "It grieved me to say that my heart and the judgment of God had given me unite in condemning the measures we are carrying out as most tyrannical - positive robbery."
Even Charles Napier had written in his diary before fighting began, "we have no right…. Rascality it will be". For this rascality, Napier was awarded 70000 Pound and governorship of Sindh.
“Punjab’s fate after Ranjit Singh was foredoomed as the impulse of neo-Victorian Imperialism was bound to overwhelm it”. Elucidate [2010, 20m]
“Annexation of Punjab was part of a broad north-west frontier policy set in motion after the exit of Maharaja Ranjit Singh.” Critically examine [2015, 10 Marks]
Punjab was annexed in the British territories in the second Anglo-Sikh war in 1849. However, much before Lord Dalhousie’s attempt to its annexation, the geo-political situation of Punjab after Ranjit Singh, combined with the New-imperialism of European nations, sealed its fate.
Punjab was regarded as a buffer state between British controlled North India and the Muslim state of Iran and Afghanistan. However, after the death of Raja Ranjit Singh, the political instability (as a result of court intrigues, and assassinations) and rise of Khalsa Army alarmed the British to take certain actions before it turned out to be formidable rival.
However, the fate of Punjab in its annexation is also a manifestation of the neo-imperialism which started in 1830s where all developed European countries along with USA and Japan embarked on the policy of acquiring as many colonies as they can. The same was required due to the increased requirement for stable market for finished goods, raw material and investment avenues for surplus capital.
In Punjab, the new imperialism combined with the internal factionalism, overwhelmed the earlier policy of not to interfere in the internal matters and a ban on the forward policies after the Pitt’s India Act (1984). It ultimately resulted in Anglo-Sikh wars and complete annihilation of the state.
Ranjit Singh had relations with Russia. It was also a factor for British not annexing Punjab during his reign and after that they annexed it.
0 Comments