At the beginning of the eighteenth century English commerce
with India was nearly a hundred years old. It was transacted
by the East India Company, which had been given a monopoly of
all English trade to Asia by royal grant at its foundation in
1600. Through many vicissitudes, the Company had evolved into
a commercial concern only matched in size by its Dutch rival.
Some 3000 shareholders subscribed to a stock of £3 200 000; a
further £6 million was borrowed on short-term bonds; twenty or
thirty ships a year were sent to Asia and annual sales in
London were worth up to £2 million. Twenty-four directors,
elected annually by the shareholders ran the Company's
operations from its headquarters in the City of London.
Towards the end of the seventeenth century India became the
focal point of the Company's trade. Cotton cloth woven by
Indian weavers was being imported into Britain in huge
quantities to supply a worldwide demand for cheap, washable,
lightweight fabrics for dresses and furnishings. The Company's
main settlements, Bombay, Madras and Calcutta were established
in the Indian provinces where cotton textiles for export were
most readily available. These settlements had evolved from
'factories' or trading posts into major commercial towns under
British jurisdiction, as Indian merchants and artisans moved
in to do business with the Company and with the British
inhabitants who lived there.
Regional politics
The East India Company's trade was built on a sophisticated
Indian economy. India offered foreign traders the skills of
its artisans in weaving cloth and winding raw silk,
agricultural products for export, such as sugar, the indigo
dye or opium, and the services of substantial merchants and
rich bankers. During the seventeenth century at least, the
effective rule maintained by the Mughal emperors throughout
much of the subcontinent provided a secure framework for
trade.
The Company's Indian trade in the first half of the
eighteenth century seemed to be established on a stable and
profitable basis. Those who directed its affairs in London
could see no case for military or political intervention to
try to change the status quo. The British did, however, start
to intervene in Indian politics from the 1750s, and
revolutionary changes in their role in India were to follow.
This change of course can best be explained partly in terms of
changed conditions in India and partly as a consequence of the
aggressive ambitions of the local British themselves.
Conditions in India were certainly changing. The Mughal
empire had disintegrated and was being replaced by a variety
of regional states. This did not produce a situation of
anarchy and chaos, as used once to be assumed. Some of the
regional states maintained stable rule and there was no marked
overall economic decline throughout India.
There were, however, conflicts within some of the new
states. Contestants for power in certain coastal states were
willing to seek European support for their ambitions and
Europeans were only too willing to give it. In part, they
acted on behalf of their companies. By the 1740s rivalry
between the British and the French, who were late comers to
Indian trade, was becoming acute. In southern India the
British and the French allied with opposed political factions
within the successor states to the Mughals to extract gains
for their own companies and to weaken the position of their
opponents. Private ambitions were also involved. Great
personal rewards were promised to the European commanders who
succeeded in placing their Indian clients on the thrones for
which they were contending. A successful kingmaker, like
Robert Clive, could become prodigiously rich
A new empire in India
The Anglo-French conflicts that began in the 1750s ended in
1763 with a British ascendancy in the southeast and most
significantly in Bengal. There the local ruler actually took
the Company's Calcutta settlement in 1756, only to be driven
out of it by British troops under Robert Clive, whose victory
at Plassey in the following year enabled a new British
satellite ruler to be installed. British influence quickly
gave way to outright rule over Bengal, formally conceded to
Clive in 1765 by the still symbolically important, if
militarily impotent, Mughal emperor.
What opinion in Britain came to recognise as a new British
empire in India remained under the authority of the East India
Company, even if the importance of the national concerns now
involved meant that the Company had to submit to increasingly
close supervision by the British state and to periodical
inquiries by parliament. In India, the governors of the
Company's commercial settlements became governors of provinces
and, although the East India Company continued to trade, many
of its servants became administrators in the new British
regimes. Huge armies were created, largely composed of Indian
sepoys but with some regular British regiments. These armies
were used to defend the Company's territories, to coerce
neighbouring Indian states and to crush any potential internal
resistance.
Company government
The new Company governments were based on those of the
Indian states that they had displaced and much of the
effective work of administration was initially still done by
Indians. Collection of taxes was the main function of
government. About one third of the produce of the land was
extracted from the cultivators and passed up to the state
through a range of intermediaries, who were entitled to keep a
proportion for themselves.
In addition to enforcing a system whose yield provided the
Company with the resources to maintain its armies and finance
its trade, British officials tried to fix what seemed to them
to be an appropriate balance between the rights of the
cultivating peasants and those of the intermediaries, who
resembled landlords. British judges also supervised the
courts, which applied Hindu or Islamic rather than British
law. There was as yet little belief in the need for outright
innovation. On the contrary, men like Warren Hastings, who
ruled British Bengal from 1772 to 1785, believed that Indian
institutions were well adapted to Indian needs and that the
new British governments should try to restore an 'ancient
constitution', which had been subverted during the upheavals
of the eighteenth century. If this were done, provinces like
Bengal would naturally recover their legendary past
prosperity.
By the end of the century, however, opinions were changing.
India seemed to be suffering not merely from an unfortunate
recent history but from deeply ingrained backwardness. It
needed to be 'improved' by firm, benevolent foreign rule.
Various strategies for improvement were being discussed.
Property relations should be reformed to give greater security
to the ownership of land. Laws should be codified on
scientific principles. All obstacles to free trade between
Britain and India should be removed, thus opening India's
economy to the stimulus of an expanding trade with Europe.
Education should be remodelled. The ignorance and superstition
thought to be inculcated by Asian religions should be
challenged by missionaries propagating the rationality
embodied in Christianity. The implementation of improvement in
any systematic way lay in the future, but commitment to
governing in Indian ways through Indians was waning fast.
Territorial expansion
The conquests that had begun in the 1750s had never been
sanctioned in Britain and both the national government and the
directors of the Company insisted that further territorial
expansion must be curbed. This proved a vain hope. The
Company's new domains made it a participant in the complex
politics of post-Mughal India. It sought to keep potential
enemies at a distance by forming alliances with neighbouring
states. These alliances led to increasing intervention in the
affairs of such states and to wars fought on their behalf. In
Warren Hastings's period the British were drawn into expensive
and indecisive wars on several fronts, which had a dire effect
on the Company's finances and were strongly condemned at home.
By the end of the century, however, the Company's governor
general, Richard Wellesley, soon to be Marquess Wellesley, was
willing to abandon policies of limited commitment and to use
war as an instrument for imposing British hegemony on all the
major states in the subcontinent. A series of intermittent
wars was beginning which would take British authority over the
next fifty years up to the mountains of Afghanistan in the
west and into Burma in the east.
Prof Peter Marshall is Professor Emeritus at King's
College, London University, where he was Rhodes Professor of
Imperial History from 1981 until his retirement in 1993. He is
the author of a number of books on the early history of
British India and was editor of The Cambridge Illustrated
History of the British Empire, Cambridge, 1996 (paperback
edition, 2001) and of the second volume, The Eighteenth
Century, Oxford, 1998, of The Oxford History of the
British Empire. He was President of the Royal Historical
Society, 1996-2000.
Go further
Read on
Indian Society and the Making of the British Empire
in The New Cambridge History of India (vol. II, 1) by
C. A. Bayly, Cambridge 1988.
Revenue and Reform: The Indian Problem in British
Politics, 1757-1813 by H. V. Bowen, Cambridge 1991.
The Trading World of Asia and the English East India
Company 1600-1760 by K. N. Chaudhuri, Cambridge 1978.
The East India Company: A History, by Philip Lawson,
London 1993.
Bengal: The British Bridgehead, Eastern India,
1740-1828 in The New Cambridge History of India,
(vol. II, 2) by P. J. Marshall, Cambridge 1987.